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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Referenced element “S101” in paragraph [0097] of the specification is not a labeled element in the corresponding drawing.
Referenced element “S201” in paragraph [00119] of the specification is not a labeled element in the corresponding drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: throughout the disclosure, applicant has not submitted equations with properly rendered symbols. It is unclear what the exact variables and/or numbers are in the equations due to the symbol “□” appearing throughout the specification. While reading, the examiner found these errors in paragraphs [00105], [00106], [00107], [00108], [00139], [00140], [00153], [00165], [00215-00221], [00286], and [00289-00291]. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 9-12, and 16-17 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.
Claim 5 in line 3 recites, “vec (●)”. However, no definition of parameter “●” can be found either in claim 5 or the specification. Thus, it is unclear how the applicant intends to define this matrix. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret “vec (●)” to be “vec(
Z
p
,
m
,
n
~
)”.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "a third to-be-processed matrix" and “a fourth to-be-processed matrix” in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 9 only depends upon claims 1 and 2, no previous to-be-processed matrices have been defined, thus there cannot be a “third” and “fourth” matrix. Thus, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 10-11 and 17 are dependent upon claim 9 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12, in line 6, recites the limitation “angle(●)” . However, no definition of parameter “●” can be found either in claim 12 or the specification. Thus, it is unclear precisely which parameter the applicant intends to determine a complex phase of. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret “angle (●)” to be “angle(
λ
i
R
)”.
Claims 16 and 17 recite several equations where mathematical operators have not been properly reported. Several examples may be found in the equations in these claims, and in the body of said claims, where mathematical operators have not been rendered correctly and are represented as a blank box
PNG
media_image1.png
96
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. For example, line 3 of claim 16 currently reads:
It is assumed for examination purposes that the intended form of this expression is:
J
2
R
=
I
P
~
⊗
O
M
~
N
~
-
1
×
M
~
,
I
M
~
(
N
~
-
1
)
However, the meaning of these expressions as written are unclear, and thus the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites the following limitations:
determining a first reference matrix related to a first parameter of a target according to a signal subspace matrix of the OFDM signal, wherein the signal subspace matrix comprises relevant information of at least one parameter of the target; and
determining the first parameter based on a first reference eigenvalue of the first reference matrix.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “determining a first reference matrix”, which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “Determining a first reference matrix” is considered to be is a mathematical concept because it is a method for the determination of a particular matrix from a signal matrix.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signal. The additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)) Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Representative claim 20 recites the following limitations:
determine a first reference matrix related to a first parameter of a target according to a signal subspace matrix of an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signal, wherein the signal subspace matrix comprises relevant information of at least one parameter of the target; and
determine the first parameter based on a first reference eigenvalue of the first reference matrix.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “determining a first reference matrix”, which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “Determining a first reference matrix” is considered to be is a mathematical concept because it is a method for the determination of a particular matrix from a signal matrix.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 20 recites the following additional element(s): An electronic device, a processor, a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor. These additional elements individually or in combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)) Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea onto a computer, which is parallel in scope to claim 20. Claim 21 is therefore parallel in nature to claim 20. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Yongjun, et al. "Super-resolution range and velocity estimations with OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69.10 (2020): 11659-11672, hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an OFDM parameter estimation method, comprising:
determining a first reference matrix related to a first parameter of a target (Liu Eq. 33,
P
R
=
U
s
H
~
U
~
s
-
1
U
s
H
~
U
s
R
~
=
Ψ
~
-
1
D
R
Ψ
~
, further, Liu Pg. 11665 col. 1 “From (33), we can see that if we can obtain the eigenvalues of PR, the ranges of targets can be achieved from these eigenvalues. We usually use the received signal to obtain the estimation ˆΨ of the covariance matrix Ψ.”) according to a signal subspace matrix of the OFDM signal (Liu. Pg. 11665 col. 2, “Compute eigenvalue decomposition of
Ψ
~
and obtain the signal subspace
U
~
s
”)
wherein the signal subspace matrix comprises relevant information of at least one parameter of the target (Liu. Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “From (33), we can see that PR is similar to DR. Hence, PR and DR have the same eigenvalues. Note that DR is a diagonal matrix. Thus, the eigenvalues of DR are the diagonal elements of DR, and the eigenvectors of PR are the column vectors of Ψ~−1.”); and determining the first parameter based on a first reference eigenvalue of the first reference matrix (Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “From (33), we can see that if we can obtain the eigenvalues of PR, the ranges of targets can be achieved from these eigenvalues.”).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu further discloses:
determining a second reference matrix related to a second parameter of the target according to the signal subspace matrix (Liu Eq. 38, Liu Pg. Similar to (33), we can obtain that
P
v
=
U
s
H
~
U
~
s
-
1
U
s
H
~
U
s
v
~
=
Ψ
~
-
1
D
R
Ψ
~
.(38); and
determining the second parameter according to a first eigen matrix of the first reference matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 1 “where
G
is the matrix collects all the eigenvectors of
P
R
”, further, Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 2,
Λ
v
=
d
i
a
g
{
λ
0
v
,
λ
1
v
,
…
,
λ
N
-
1
v
) is the diagonal matrix
PNG
media_image2.png
133
953
media_image2.png
Greyscale
whose diagonal elements are corresponding to the diagonal elements of
G
P
^
v
G
-
1
) and the second reference matrix (Liu Eq. 40 ).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a number of targets and a signal relevant matrix of the OFDM signal (Liu Pg. 11662 Col. 1 “Moreover, we assume that the number of vehicles Nt are known, or has been obtained by using Akaike information criterion (AIC) [58], [59] or minimum description length (MDL) method [60], [61]. These methods are widely used to obtain the number of targets (vehicles).”, further, Liu Eq. 22 and Liu Pg 11664 “Then, in order to exploit the rotational invariance of the underlying signal subspaces, we need to obtain the covariance matrix of the received signal in (17). The covariance matrix of the received signal in (17) is (Eq. 22)
Ψ
”);
obtaining eigenvalues of the number of the targets and an eigenvector corresponding to each of the eigenvalues by performing eigenvalue decomposition on the signal relevant matrix (Liu “Compute eigenvalue decomposition of Ψ^ and obtain the signal subspace U^s which collects the eigenvectors corresponding to the Nt largest eigenvalues of Ψ^.”); and
generating the signal subspace matrix according to the eigenvectors of the number of the targets (Liu Pg. 11664 “The eigenvalue decomposition of
Ψ
can be expressed as
Ψ
=
U
Λ
U
H
”, further, Liu Pg. 11665 Algorithm 1: “Compute eigenvalue decomposition of ˆΨ and obtain the signal subspace ˆUs which collects the eigenvectors corresponding to the Nt largest eigenvalues of ˆΨ.”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu further discloses:
wherein determining the first reference matrix related to the first parameter of the target according to the signal subspace matrix of the OFDM signal comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
136
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
determining a first to-be-processed matrix and a second to-be-processed matrix related to the first parameter according to the signal subspace matrix (Liu Pg. 11664 Col. 2, Eqs. 28 and 29
and
generating the first reference matrix according to the first to-be-processed matrix and the second to-be-processed matrix (Liu Eq. 33,
PNG
media_image4.png
144
1217
media_image4.png
Greyscale
further, Liu Pg. 11664 Col. 1, “As shown in (33),PR is decided by ˜Us and ˜URs , both of which are determined by the covariance matrix Ψ, i.e., PR is determined by Ψ.”) .
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the method of claim 6. Liu further discloses:
wherein generating the first reference matrix according to the first to-be-processed matrix and the second to-be-processed matrix comprises:
obtaining the first reference matrix by processing the first to-be-processed matrix and
the second to-be-processed matrix based on a predefined equation. (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 2, Algorithm 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
184
1115
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the method of claim 2. Liu further discloses:
wherein determining the second reference matrix related to the second parameter of the target according to the signal subspace matrix comprises:
PNG
media_image6.png
52
237
media_image6.png
Greyscale
determining a third to-be-processed matrix and a fourth to-be-processed matrix related to the second parameter according to the signal subspace matrix; and (Liu Pg. 11665 Eq. 37
Here examiner notes that matrix
U
~
s
v
will be interpreted as the “third to-be-processed matrix” and
U
s
~
will be interpreted as “a fourth to-be processed matrix”)
generating the second reference matrix according to the third to-be-processed matrix and the fourth to-be-processed matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 2, Algorithm 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
103
661
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the method of claim 9. Liu further discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein generating the second reference matrix according to the third to-be-processed matrix and the fourth to-be-processed matrix comprises:
obtaining the second reference matrix by processing the third to-be-processed matrix and the fourth to-be-processed matrix based on a predefined equation (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 2, Algorithm 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
112
676
media_image8.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu further discloses:
wherein the first parameter is determined based on a following equation:
PNG
media_image9.png
63
277
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein,
R
i
^
represents the first parameter of the target, i represents an index of the target, i is a positive integer less than or equal to K , K represents a number of targets, angle (
⋅
) represents obtaining a phase of a complex number,
λ
i
R
represents a first reference eigenvalue corresponding to the target in the first reference matrix
T
^
R
(Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 1,
Λ
R
=
d
i
a
g
{
λ
0
R
,
λ
1
R
,
…
,
λ
N
-
1
R
) is an
N
t
×
N
t
diagonal matrix that collects all the eigenvalues of
P
^
R
)
, c represents speed of light, and
Δ
f
represents a subcarrier spacing of the OFDM signal (Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “From (35), we can obtain the range estimation is ”, Liu Eq. 36:
PNG
media_image10.png
62
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the method of claim 2. Liu further discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the second parameter according to the first characteristic matrix of the first reference matrix and the second reference matrix comprises:
determining a second reference eigenvalue of the second reference matrix according to the first eigen matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 1 “where
G
is the matrix collects all the eigenvectors of ˆPR”) and the second reference matrix (Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “Similar to the previous discussion, if we can obtain the eigenvalues of Pv, the velocity estimation will be achieved.”); and
determining the second parameter according to the second reference eigenvalue (Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 2 “Using (38) and (39), we can obtain the velocity estimation is : ”, Liu Eq. 40:
PNG
media_image11.png
128
975
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the method of claim 13. Liu further discloses:
PNG
media_image12.png
69
154
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The method of claim 13, wherein the second parameter is determined by a following equation:
wherein,
v
^
i
represents the second parameter,
λ
i
V
is the second reference eigenvalue, angle (o) represents obtaining a phase of a complex number, c represents speed of light,
T
¯
is a period of an OFDM symbol of the OFDM signal, and
f
c
is a carrier frequency. (Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 2 “Using (38) and (39), we can obtain the velocity estimation is : ”, Liu Eq. 40:
PNG
media_image11.png
128
975
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses the method of claim 8. Liu further discloses:
wherein the predefined equation is:
PNG
media_image13.png
118
801
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein,
PNG
media_image14.png
47
789
media_image14.png
Greyscale
represents a conjugate transpose of a matrix,
-
1
represents a transpose of a matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 2, “Algorithm 1” :
PNG
media_image15.png
110
724
media_image15.png
Greyscale
).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Yongjun, et al. "Super-resolution range and velocity estimations with OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69.10 (2020): 11659-11672, hereinafter Liu, in view of Wu et al. (US 20240178951 A1), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 3. Liu further discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
wherein determining the signal relevant matrix of the OFDM signal comprises:
determining an intermediate parameter based on an OFDM symbol transmitted by an
nth subcarrier in an mth OFDM symbol(Liu Pg. 11661 Col. 2 “In (1), Nc is the number of subcarriers, rect[t/Ts] is the rectangular function, which is equal to 1, for 0 ≤ t<Ts, and 0, otherwise, cm,n,p = ejθm,n,p is the communications information modulated on the mth subcarrier, nth OFDM symbol, and pth pulse, where θm,n,p is the information phase over the mth subcarrier, nth OFDM symbol, and pth pulse” ), wherein the intermediate parameter carries the relevant information of the at least one parameter, and the OFDM signal is emitted by a transmitting antenna in the sensing-communication system (Liu Pg. 11661 Col. 2 “The transmitted narrowband OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform is”), p is a positive integer, and p =0,1,...,NR-1, NR is a number (Liu Pg. 1163 Col. 2 “The frequency smoothing is illustrated in Fig. 4. After the communications information is compensated, let
y
˘
n
,
p
,
k
=
[
y
~
n
,
p
(
k
)
,
y
~
n
,
p
(
k
+
1
)
,
.
.
.
,
y
~
n
,
p
(
k
+
M
-
1
)
]
T
collect the kth∼
PNG
media_image16.png
180
972
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(k+M−1)th, for k=0,1,..., Nc−M, components of
y
˘
n
,
p
, in (13), where
y
~
n
,
p
(
k
)
is the kth element of
y
~
n
,
p
. Hence, we can obtain ”
PNG
media_image17.png
134
621
media_image17.png
Greyscale
determining the signal relevant matrix of the OFDM signal according to the intermediate parameter (Liu Pg 11664, col. 2, “Then, in order to exploit the rotational invariance of the underlying signal subspaces, we need to obtain the covariance matrix of the received signal in(17). The covariance matrix of the received signal in (17) is”, further, Liu Eq. 22 ).
Liu fails to disclose the limitations below. Wu discloses:
of a ph receiving antenna (Wu [0140] “Similarly, as shown in FIG. 6, the receive end of the CO entity performs inverse spectrum spreading on a signal of each receive antenna by using c*.sub.k, and then performs coherent combining. The output signal is input into the FFT and a data detection module”)
receiving antennas (Wu [0065] “In addition, each transmitter is equipped with K transmit antennas, and each receiver is equipped with L receive antennas.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wu into the invention of Liu. Both Liu and Wu are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose OFDM radar parameter estimation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Liu include an apparatus with antennas as taught by Wu. While Liu does not disclose a specific device, it is obvious that one would require a radar device to perform the method, which could be implemented in the device as disclosed by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method in order to perform the method using a physical device, as well as to perform radar sensing and communications on shared antennas, and to perform angle of arrival measurements of targets (See Liu Pg. 11659 , Wu [0073] ).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses an OFDM radar processing method. Liu further discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first reference matrix related to a first parameter of a target (Liu Eq. 33,
P
R
=
U
s
H
~
U
~
s
-
1
U
s
H
~
U
s
R
~
=
Ψ
~
-
1
D
R
Ψ
~
, further, Liu Pg. 11665 col. 1 “From (33), we can see that if we can obtain the eigenvalues of PR, the ranges of targets can be achieved from these eigenvalues. We usually use the received signal to obtain the estimation ˆΨ of the covariance matrix Ψ.”) according to a signal subspace matrix of an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signal (Liu. Pg. 11665 col. 2, “Compute eigenvalue decomposition of
Ψ
~
and obtain the signal subspace
U
~
s
”), wherein the signal subspace matrix comprises relevant information of at least one parameter of the target ; and
determine the first parameter based on a first reference eigenvalue of the first reference matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 1,
Λ
R
=
d
i
a
g
{
λ
0
R
,
λ
1
R
,
…
,
λ
N
-
1
R
) is an
N
t
×
N
t
diagonal matrix that collects all the eigenvalues of
P
^
R
, further, Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “From (35), we can obtain the range estimation is ”, Liu Eq. 36:
PNG
media_image10.png
62
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Liu fails to disclose the limitations below. Wu discloses
(Wu [0027] “[0029] According to a seventh aspect, a network side device is provided, where the network side device includes a processor”); and
(Wu [0029] “According to a seventh aspect, a network side device is provided, where the network side device includes a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction stored in the memory and executable on the processor”); wherein,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Liu to include an apparatus with a processor and a memory as taught by Wu. While Liu does not disclose a specific device, it is obvious that one would require a radar device to perform the method, which could be implemented in the device as disclosed by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method in order to perform said method using a physical device, where a processor is required to perform the calculations specified in said method (See Wu [0028-0032]).
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses (system/apparatus/method). Liu further discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
:
determining a first reference matrix related to a first parameter of a target according to a signal subspace matrix of the OFDM signal, wherein the signal subspace matrix comprises relevant information of at least one parameter of the target; and (Liu Eq. 33,
P
R
=
U
s
H
~
U
~
s
-
1
U
s
H
~
U
s
R
~
=
Ψ
~
-
1
D
R
Ψ
~
, further, Liu Pg. 11665 col. 1 “From (33), we can see that if we can obtain the eigenvalues of PR, the ranges of targets can be achieved from these eigenvalues. We usually use the received signal to obtain the estimation ˆΨ of the covariance matrix Ψ.”, further, Liu. Pg. 11665 col. 2, “Compute eigenvalue decomposition of
Ψ
~
and obtain the signal subspace
U
~
s
”)
determining the first parameter based on a first reference eigenvalue of the first reference matrix (Liu Pg. 11665, Col. 1,
Λ
R
=
d
i
a
g
{
λ
0
R
,
λ
1
R
,
…
,
λ
N
-
1
R
) is an
N
t
×
N
t
diagonal matrix that collects all the eigenvalues of
P
^
R
, further, Liu Pg. 11665 Col. 1 “From (35), we can obtain the range estimation is ”, Liu Eq. 36:
PNG
media_image10.png
62
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Liu fails to disclose the limitations below. Wu discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by a processor (Wu [0031] “According to a ninth aspect, a non-transitory readable storage medium is provided, storing a program or an instruction, where the program or instruction, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method according to the first aspect, or implements the steps of the method according to the second aspect.”), cause the processor to perform a parameter estimation method based on an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signal the method comprising (Wu [0074] “[0074] Sensing of the direction of arrival (DoA) may rely on a conventional subspace-based algorithm, for example, an algorithm such as a multiple signal classification (MUSIC) algorithm, an estimation of signal parameters using rotational invariance techniques (ESPRIT) algorithm, a matrix pencil algorithm, and the like.”):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Liu to include an apparatus with a processor and a non-transitory computer medium as taught by Wu. While Liu does not disclose a specific device, it is obvious that one would require a radar device to perform the method, which could be implemented in the device as disclosed by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method in order to perform said method using a physical device, where a processor is required to perform the calculations specified in said method (See Wu [0028-0032]).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Yongjun, et al. "Super-resolution range and velocity estimations with OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69.10 (2020): 11659-11672, hereinafter Liu, in view of Sanson, Jessica, et al. "Comparison of DoA algorithms for MIMO OFDM radar." 2018 15th European radar conference (EuRAD). IEEE, 2018., hereinafter Sanson.
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the method of claim 13. Liu fails to disclose the limitations below. Sanson discloses:
PNG
media_image18.png
85
296
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The method of claim 13, wherein the second parameter is determined by a following equation:
wherein,
θ
i
^
represents the second parameter,
λ
i
θ
is the second reference eigenvalue, angle (") represents obtaining a phase of a complex number,
λ
represents a wavelength, d represents a spacing between different receiving antennas, and the OFDM signal is received by a receiving antenna (Sanson Pg. 228, column 1, “The diagonal elements (or eigenvalues) of Φ are equal
to the eigenvalues of the transformation matrix Ψ that relates U1 and U2. then the arrival angles can be estimated by the eigenvalues (λΦ) of Φ:”, further, Sanson Eq. 19).
PNG
media_image19.png
108
642
media_image19.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sanson into the invention of Liu. Both Liu and Sanson are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose OFDM parameter estimation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Liu to perform an estimate of an angle rather than a range as taught by Sanson. This is commonly implemented using the MUSIC or ESPRIT algorithms in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method in order to estimate the azimuth of local targets (See Sanson Pgs. 227-228).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 10 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the examiner has not found any prior art that would render obvious the limitations: “wherein
γ
p
~
,
m
~
,
n
~
represents the intermediate parameter,
m
~
=
0,1
,
…
,
M
-
M
~
,
n
~
=
0
,
1
,
…
,
N
-
N
~
,
p
~
=
0
,
1
,
…
,
N
r
-
P
~
.
M
~
represents a size of a smoothing window along the OFDM symbol of the OFDM signal based on a time domain dimension,
N
~
represents a size of the smoothing window along the subcarrier based on a frequency domain dimension,
P
~
represents a size of the smoothing window along an antenna based on a spatial domain dimension.”.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner has not found any prior art that would render obvious the limitations: “obtaining the second to-be-processed matrix by multiplying a second row selection matrix and the signal subspace matrix; wherein, the first to-be-processed matrix does not carry information of the first parameter, and the second to-be-processed matrix carries the information of the first parameter.”
Regarding claim 10, the examiner has not found any prior art that would render obvious the limitations: “obtaining the third to-be-processed matrix by multiplying a third row selection matrix and the signal subspace matrix; and obtaining the fourth to-be-processed matrix by multiplying a fourth row selection matrix and the signal subspace matrix; wherein, the third to-be-processed matrix does not carry information of the second parameter, and the fourth to-be-processed matrix carries the information of the second parameter.”.
Regarding claims 16, this claim depends upon claim 7 which has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter over the prior art. Therefore, this claim is considered allowable by dependency.
Regarding claim 17, this claim depends upon claim 10, which has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter over the prior art. Therefore, this claim is considered allowable by dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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 H. 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights