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 23213792 filed on December 1, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted comply 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 – 12, 14 – 17 and 19 – 20 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.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the feature of determining an approximation of the IQ representation, wherein the approximation has a spiral configuration; determining a phase of the received radar signal based on the approximation is directed to mathematical concepts as indicated by dependent claims 2 – 10 all of which are mathematical concepts. See claims 1 – 10.
Claims 15 and 20 have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 11, data compression is considered a mathematical operation.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, change in range (motion) is a function of wavelength and change in phase, e.g.,
∆
R
=
λ
∆
∅
4
π
.
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 is with respect to accurately compensating for spiral-shaped distortions in in-phase and quadrature (IQ) data. See Spec. Para. 3.
The additional features of claim 1 include obtaining IQ representation data indicating a received radar data. See claim 1. The additional feature of claims 14 and 16 describe the data as near-field, which is the type of data received. The additional feature of claim 15 in addition to claim 1 is a processor. The additional feature of claim 19 is a radar.
The features directed to receiving data and describing the type of data received are considered extra-solution activity. Also, the radar is claimed at a high level of generality for the purpose of data gathering, including transmitting and receiving, and is considered extra-solution activity. Also, the processor appears to be a general-purpose computer as shown by Applicants Figure 1 wherein the processor is used to perform mathematical calculations. See claims 9 – 18. 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 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).
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 reducing spiral-shaped distortions in IQ data. See Spec. Para. 3. Here, the improvement appears to be a result of the mathematical concepts and not necessarily due to the arrangement of the hardware as claimed, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as currently written. The additional features, e.g., radar and a processor, are considered routine, well-understood and conventional because it is standard procedure to use a sensor to collect data and processing circuitry to processed said collected sensor data.
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 routine, well-understood 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The statutory basis for 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 8, 14 – 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Will “Segmental Polynomial Approximation based Phase Error Correction for Precise Near Field Displacement Measurements using Six-Port Microwave Interferometers” as provided for on the IDS with a published date of year 2017.
As to claims 1, 15 and 20, Will discloses a method comprising:
obtaining an in-phase and quadrature (IQ) representation of radar data indicating a received radar signal (Equation 1);
determining an approximation of the IQ representation, wherein the approximation has a spiral configuration (Fig. 1 item b); and
determining a phase of the received radar signal based on the approximation (Section II Fig. 1 item c “phase correction”).
As to claim 2, Will discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the approximation is determined by determining a polynomial approximation of a spiral shape for the IQ representation (Title and throughout document.).
As to claim 3, Will discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the approximation comprises matching respective segments of multiple circles or ellipses to respective parts of the IQ representation, wherein the segments jointly reproduce the spiral configuration (Fig. 2 and Equation 2).
As to claim 5, Will discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the approximation is determined by fitting a spiral function to the IQ representation (Equation 2).
As to claim 6, Will discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the phase is determined by applying an arc-tangent demodulation to the approximation (Section II second paragraph).
As to claim 8, Will discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating a center of a spiral shape of the IQ representation; and determining the approximation based on the estimated center (Para. 65 “the robust Median derived centroid”).
As to claims 14 and 16, Will discloses method of claims 1 and 5 wherein the radar signal represents an object within a near field of a radar sensor (Title).
As to claim 19, Will discloses the radar system, comprising: the apparatus of claim 15; and a radar sensor configured to emit a radar signal and receive a reflection of the radar signal, yielding the received radar signal (Title “reflection”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The statutory basis for 35 USC § 103
“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.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Will in view of Feng (A Method of Quadrature Amplitude Modulation Signals Identification at Low Signal-to-noise Rations).
As to claim 4, Will does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the approximation is determined by applying manifold learning to the IQ representation.
In the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches “The Isomap algorithm is based on multidimensional scaling (MDS). The data is mapped from a high-dimensional input space to the low-dimensional space of a nonlinear manifold depending on global invariants (Section III).
In view of the teachings of Feng, it would have been obvious to apply manifold learning, e.g., Isomap, to the nonlinear data in order to reduce dimensionality thereby avoiding complex linear approximation, improving target classification and mitigating clutter.
Claims 7 and 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Will in view of Droitcour (US 2010/0292568 A1).
As to claim 7, Will does not teach but Droitcour (in the same field of endeavor) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the phase is determined by linearizing the phase with respect to an arc length of the approximation (Droitcour Para. 277 “the quadrature signals can be demodulated using any of several algorithms, including but not limited to linear demodulation, arc-based demodulation algorithm (e.g., arc-tangent demodulation with center tracking) or non-linear demodulation algorithm.”).
The specification states “Two specific examples of a phase determination technique may be arc-tangent demodulation and phase linearization.” See Spec. Para. 83. As such, applicant acknowledges phase linearization as a common alternative to arc-tangent.
In view of the teachings Droitcour, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply linear phase demodulation because it is known that said arctan demodulation has broad dynamic range but depends on precise phase modulation depth whereas said linear phase demodulation is known to be mathematically simpler and offers benefits such as lower non-linear distortion and independent of modulation depth.
As to claim 9, Will does not teach but Droitcour (same field of endeavor) teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the center is estimated by applying an ellipse fitting method or a circle fitting method to the IQ representation (Droitcour Para. 57).
In view of teachings of Droitcour, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skill to apply elliptical fitting in order to reduce amplitude and phase imbalances/deviations thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 10, Will does not teach but Droitcour (same field of endeavor) teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the ellipse fitting method or the circle fitting method is applied to a predefined winding of the spiral shape (Droitcour Para. 57).
In view of the teachings of Droitcour, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply elliptical fitting in order to reduce phase and amplitude distortion thereby improving accuracy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Will in view of Sukumaran (US 20220159097 A1).
As to claim 11, Will does not teach but Sukumaran (in the same field of endeavor) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating a provisional phase of the received radar signal based on the IQ representation; compressing the IQ representation with respect to the provisional phase; and determining the approximation for the compressed IQ representation (Sukumaran Para. 40 “In one embodiment, when each range 510A-T is repented with 64 bits (32 bit in-phase and 32 bit quadrature phase component) the compressed 681A-681T may be represented with 16 bits. Thus, providing a compression ratio of 4×. Thus substantially reducing the memory requirement.”).
In view of the teachings of Sukumaran, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply compression to reduce data set thus reducing memory requirement. Compressing data from one size to another size means that the first size data is provisional.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Will in view of Fuhler (US 20170192088 A1).
As to claims 12 and 17, Will does not teach but Fuhler (same field of endeavor) teaches the method of claim 1 and 15, further comprising determining a motion of a target based on the determined phase (Para. 52 “Specifically, in the top left panel 410 of FIG. 4, each of the I&Q vectors map out a helix, and if the signal is of the correct Doppler Frequency for this filter, then that helix must have a unique and measurable spin rate … Looking at the sample phases therefore allows easy measurement on how well they are co-aligned (Para. 52).”).
In view of the teachings of Fuhler, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before filing to determine motion based on the IQ phase in order to allow for many applications such as surveillance thus expanding monetary market as well as allowing for the ability to determine objects of interest from clutter thereby improving accuracy. Doppler is also a well-known common application of radar to detect motion and clutter filtering.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but would be allowable in rewritten as an independent claim with all features of the base claim(s).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, prior art was not found that anticipates or makes obvious determining motion related to blood pressure. Droitcour (US 20100292568 A1) teaches blood pressure based on radar motion. See Droitcour Para. 159. However, Droitcour does not mention spiral or helix IQ shapes, thus there does not appear to be a nexus between blood pressure and the claimed spiral shapes in order to make such a modification reasonable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Justice whose telephone number is 571-270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached on during normal business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01 . To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice .
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights