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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 9-13 should read,
“[…] in presence of a separable path in the path distribution area, taking an angle corresponding to a maximum amplitude point in an ambiguity range of the separable path as an angle of arrival of the separable path, and taking a time corresponding to the maximum amplitude point in the ambiguity range of the separable path as a time of arrival of the separable path; and […]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a channel impulse response of each antenna oscillator in an array in a received signal, calculating a delay-angle of arrival spectrum based on the channel impulse responses, dividing and classifying a path distribution area according to the spectrum, then, depending on the state of a path in the path distribution area as separable or inseparable, following a specific series of signal analysis steps to taking an angle as a path’s angle of arrival and a time as a path’s time of arrival. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations using mathematical calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method of claim 1 only recite the additional element of a multi-antenna array, each having an antenna oscillator. The steps of determining a channel impulse response of each antenna oscillator in an array in a received signal, calculating a delay-angle of arrival spectrum based on the channel impulse responses, dividing and classifying a path distribution area according to the spectrum, then, depending on the state of a path in the path distribution area as separable or inseparable, following a specific series of signal analysis steps to taking an angle as a path’s angle of arrival and a time as a path’s time of arrival, amount to mere gathering of signal data that is analyzed in order to divide and classify a path distribution area, on which mathematical analysis is performed. In addition, no additional steps have been provided to clarify how a path distribution area is obtained.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional element of a multi-antenna array which is merely a generic tool to execute mere data gathering and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception or transform a physical article into a different state. See MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c).
Claims 2, 11, and 16 are directed to calculation of the delay-angle of arrival spectrum which is a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are directed to dividing and classifying the path distribution area which amounts to a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 13, and 18 are directed to estimating the angle of arrival and the time of arrival of each inseparable path which is a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are directed to calculating the number of inseparable paths which is a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are directed to an optimal estimation algorithm which is a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is directed to signal modulation which is a mathematical concept and thus an abstract idea.
Claim 8 is directed to an electronic device which comprises at least one processor and a storage device which causes the at least one processor to implement the method of claim 1, which are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the additional elements of an electronic device, processor(s), and storage device do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception or transform a physical article into a different state, and merely amounts to generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is directed to an electronic device comprising a multi-antenna receiver comprising a multi-antenna array, which is merely a generic tool to execute mere data gathering and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element of a multi-antenna receiver does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception or transform a physical article into a different state.
Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program that implements the method of claim 1, which merely amounts to generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (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 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights