DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 10-22 filed on 11 DEC 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/976,979, filed on 11 DEC 2024, claims priority from foreign application EP23217276.7, filed on 15 DEC 2023 with the European Patent Office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 DEC 2024 has been 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 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 10-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 17-21 are directed to a radar device (i.e., a machine), and claim 22 is directed to a nontransitory medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 10-22 are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 of MPEP 2106.04, independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below), and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
16. A method of operating a radar device, comprising the steps:
performing pulse radar measurements with a determination of measured channel impulse response (CIR) taps;
determining a specified training set of measured CIR taps;
determining a specified target set of measured CIR taps in a region of interest with expected radar targets;
determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set;
determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set; and
predicting a value for the specified target CIR tap, wherein the predicted value is subtracted from the corresponding value of the specified target CIR tap;
wherein, in order to provide the training set and the target set, a training setup is performed, wherein values of specified measured CIR taps are stored in a signal vector, wherein for the training set zero-mean tap values are determined and stacked in a zero-mean signal vector and wherein for the target set one selected zero-mean signal vector is selected out of the signal vector.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers organizing data and determining which mathematical process should be applied. For example, the steps of “determining a specified training set…,” “determining a specified target set…,” and “in order to provide the training set and the target set…” in the context of this claim encompass a person sorting the collected data, and the steps of “determining an auto-covariance…,” “determining a cross-covariance…,” and “predicting a value” encompass performing mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 of MPEP 2106.04, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
16. A method of operating a radar device, comprising the steps:
performing pulse radar measurements with a determination of measured channel impulse response (CIR) taps;
determining a specified training set of measured CIR taps;
determining a specified target set of measured CIR taps in a region of interest with expected radar targets;
determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set;
determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set; and
predicting a value for the specified target CIR tap, wherein the predicted value is subtracted from the corresponding value of the specified target CIR tap;
wherein, in order to provide the training set and the target set, a training setup is performed, wherein values of specified measured CIR taps are stored in a signal vector, wherein for the training set zero-mean tap values are determined and stacked in a zero-mean signal vector and wherein for
Regarding the additional limitation of “performing pulse radar measurements with a determination of measured channel impulse response (CIR) taps,” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of granularity, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of MPEP 2106.05(d), independent claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitation of “performing pulse radar measurements with a determination of measured channel impulse response (CIR) taps,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element as described in paragraph [0064].
Independent claims 10, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons as independent claim 16 above.
Dependent claim(s) 11-15 and 18-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise
explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 11-15 and 18-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 10 and 17, respectively.
Therefore, claim(s) 10-22 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, a method of operating a radar device, the method comprising… determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set; determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set…”
The closest prior art was found to be Wu et al. (EP 3,869,223 A1, cited by the applicant in IDS filed 11 DEC 2024) and Huang (US 2020/0278438 A1). Wu et al. discloses performing calibration by measuring the background channel information, so that it may be scaled and subtracted from the time series channel information (Wu ¶ [0312] – [0313]). Huang et al. discloses a method of canceling the leakage of a radar transceiver by estimating the taps that include the leakage signal and subtracting the estimated leakage signal (Huang et al. ¶ [0066]). However, neither Wu et al. nor Huang et al disclose the steps of determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set; determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set…, as set forth in claim 10.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant' s filing to combine the teachings of the above references to yield the applicant's invention. The cited references fail to individually disclose, or suggest when combined, the steps of determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set; determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set…, as set forth in claim 10.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicant' s invention, specifically the steps of determining an auto-covariance matrix of CIR taps of the specified training set; determining a cross-covariance vector between CIR taps of the specified training set and a specified target CIR tap of the specified target set… in combination with the recited limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
2 SEP 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights