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 INTERPRETATION
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 6 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The step “calculating, when the jitter has been detected, tracking information after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal” recited in claim 6 lines 4-6 is not required to be performed unless it is determined that an attack using a spoofing signal is present as recited in lines 2-3 and 7-9. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 therefore does not require this step. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 5-7 “calculate, when the jitter has been detected, tracking information after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal”, it is unclear what the information on a distance and a velocity is removed from.
Regarding claim 1 line 8, it is unclear what is meant by “the processing circuitry acknowledges that the jitter has been detected”, as it is unclear what falls within the scope of processing circuitry acknowledging such detection. Examiner recommends using “determines”, consistent with lines 3-4.
Regarding claim 1 lines 9-11, the scope of “the slope being obtained by representing a frequency peak of each waveform in a range spectrum of the beat signal by a linear function of a waveform number” cannot be clearly determined because there is no basis for any waveforms or waveform numbers in the claim and it is unclear what is meant by these. It is further unclear what a “frequency peak of each waveform” comprises.
Regarding claim 4 lines 2-4, it is unclear what the “record of tracking information” comprises, as opposed to the “tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry” and “tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal”. Are the “tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry” and “tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal” part of the “record of tracking information”? It is further unclear what distinguishes “tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry” from “tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal”, as it appears that both of these calculations would have been “calculated by the processing circuitry”. It is further unclear what it means for the processor to “refer” to the “record of tracking information”. The specification does not appear to provide a clear description.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the same language as claim 1 and are rejected as indefinite for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a signal processing device and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
determine whether or not an attack using a spoofing signal is present by detecting jitter caused by the attack using the spoofing signal from a beat signal... wherein the processing circuitry acknowledges that the jitter has been detected when a slope exceeds a slope threshold, the slope being obtained by representing a frequency peak of each waveform in a range spectrum of the beat signal by a linear function of a waveform number; and
calculate, when the jitter has been detected, tracking information after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), as obtaining a slope by representing a frequency peak of each waveform in a range spectrum of the beat signal by a linear function of a waveform number, determining if it exceeds a slope threshold, filtering data by “removing information”, and calculating tracking information, are mathematical operations.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites the steps performed by processing circuitry. According to paras. [0014]-[0015] and [0083] of the specification, the processing circuitry comprises generic computer equipment that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I. and 2106.05(f)). This element therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional element recited in the claim include generic computer equipment that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not amount to significantly more, i.e. it do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 I. A.).
This element therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. it do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 recite further mathematical operations without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Independent claim 6 differs from claim 1 in reciting a signal processing method and is not patent eligible for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 7 differs from claim 1 in reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a signal processing program that causes a computer to function as a signal processing device. These elements comprise generic computer equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Claim 7 is therefore not patent eligible.
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 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200371202 A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Suzuki teaches [limitations not taught are lined through; limitations added to explain Suzuki’s teachings are italicized], as best understood, a signal processing device comprising processing circuitry (Figs. 1, 7) to:
determine whether or not an attack using a spoofing signal is present (abstract “determines whether an abnormal attenuation is present in a beat signal”; para. [0005] “determine whether an attack is present” in view of para. [0003] “Deception signifies an attack that causes radio waves disguised as reflected waves to enter the radar from the outside, thereby causing incorrect measurements”) by detecting jitter caused by the attack using the spoofing signal from a beat signal (abstract “determines whether an abnormal attenuation is present in a beat signal (S305)”; S305, Fig. 3); and
calculate, when the jitter has been detected, tracking information (para. [0059] “calculation of the relative distance and the relative speed”) after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal (para. [0059] “a frame determined as abnormal by the attenuation detection unit 324 or the abnormal frequency detection unit 325, among frames of the beat signal S305, is excluded from the calculation of the relative distance and the relative speed and is not used for the calculation”),
wherein the processing circuitry acknowledges that the jitter has been detected when a slope exceeds a slope threshold (Fig. 8 and paras. [0022] and [0069] describe determining spoofing/jitter when the slope of g differs from a slope threshold defined by the slope of f1, where in at least some cases the slope of g will exceed that of f1), the slope being obtained by representing a frequency peak of each waveform in a range spectrum of the beat signal by a linear function of time (as best understood, Fig. 8 shows frequency peaks of waveforms as a function of time, where the waveforms are shown as FR1, FR2... etc. in Figs. 6 and 7).
Suzuki does not teach the slope obtained from a linear function of a waveform number.
However, Suzuki appear to show what could be considered waveform numbers in Figs. 6 and 7 (FR1, FR2...). As each numbered waveform spans an equal period of time, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the linear functions shown in Fig. 8 as a function of time could be equivalently represented as functions of waveform numbers. It would have been obvious to modify Suzuki by obtaining the slope from a linear function of waveform number instead of a linear function of time because it would be a simple substitution of measurement unit for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches wherein when the jitter has been detected, the processing circuitry calculates the tracking information after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal from a range-Doppler (RD) map generated from the beat signal, or excludes a target object with a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal from tracking information generated from the beat signal (para. [0059] “a frame determined as abnormal by the attenuation detection unit 324 or the abnormal frequency detection unit 325, among frames of the beat signal S305, is excluded from the calculation of the relative distance and the relative speed and is not used for the calculation”).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches wherein when the jitter has been detected, the processing circuitry calculates the tracking information after removing information on a distance and a velocity that are observed due to the spoofing signal from the beat signal (para. [0059] “a frame determined as abnormal by the attenuation detection unit 324 or the abnormal frequency detection unit 325, among frames of the beat signal S305, is excluded from the calculation of the relative distance and the relative speed and is not used for the calculation”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200371202 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kai (US 6137435 A, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as best understood, Suzuki does not appear to teach wherein the processing circuitry refers to a record of tracking information, and selects tracking information to be adopted from tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry and tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal, wherein the processing circuitry selects the tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal when a target object that exists in the record of tracking information does not exist in the tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry.
Kai, in analogous art and as best understood, appears to teach processing circuitry that refers to a record of tracking information (6:42-43 and 7:15-16 “memory” in “In Step 12, the relative ranges and the relative velocities both of the objects are memorized in a memory” and “In Step 16, relative ranges and relative velocities of previous false images are taken out of a memory”), and selects tracking information to be adopted from tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry and tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal, wherein the processing circuitry selects the tracking information calculated directly from the beat signal when a target object that exists in the record of tracking information does not exist in the tracking information calculated by the processing circuitry (7:29-38 “In Step 19, the CPU 9 judges identical objects. In other words, relative ranges and relative velocities of a plurality of objects measured and calculated at present measurement with relative ranges and relative velocities of a plurality of objects previously measured and calculated in order to judge the identical objects when a difference between the relative ranges and a difference between the relative velocities are respectively smaller than preset threshold values” and “In Step 20, previous objects, which are not judged to be the identical objects, are deleted”, where “present measurement” refers to tracking information calculated directly from beat signal as per 7:4-28).
Kai further teaches the probability of occurrence of false images is thereby reduced (abstract “judged false images are deleted from outputs of the apparatus, whereby the false images are not recognized as target objects and probability of occurrence of false images can be reduced”). It therefore would have been obvious to modify Suzuki in view of Kai as claimed in order to reduce the occurrence of false radar images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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.
/CASSI J GALT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights