CTNF 19/002,998 CTNF 94456 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA 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. IN 202041042792 , filed on October 1, 2020 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Applicant may want to consider adding the modifier “non-transitory” to the claim language “processor-readable medium” in claims 11 – 19. Said language “processor-readable medium” may already imply non-transitory but Examiner would like Applicant’s remarks if Applicant prefers not to add language non-transitory. Claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 19 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. Fourier transforms are a mathematical procedure that projects time domain samples to a range domain, doppler/velocity domain and spatial (antenna) domain depending on the dimension. The comparison of peaks can be either one of mental or mathematical. A person can visualize a peak. The induced phase shift as broadly claimed is a desired result. 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 appears to be mitigating undesirable phase shifts. See Spec. Para. 5. The additional features include a radar, generator, digital data, processor, induced phase shift. The induced phase shift as claimed is a desired result. Digital data is data manipulation and considered data gathering. The radar and generator are claimed at a high level of generality for the purpose of transmitting and receiving data for the purpose of data gathering and thus considered extra-solution activity. The processor(s) appear to be a general-purpose computer as shown by Applicants Figures 3 – 4 wherein the processor(s) are used to perform the mathematical calculations. See Fig. 3. 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 may exist, the claimed subject matter is still abstract because all of the features discussed supra are either abstract, e.g., mathematical or mental process, 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. The additional features; e.g., radar, generator, processor, etc., when taken together do not provide for an improvement with respect to the arrangement. A generator is commonly used to generate a signal that is transmitted and received by the radar wherein the data is converted to digital data to be processed by a computer – this is well-understood, routine and conventional as can be evidenced by a plethora of art provided for on the PTO-892. Rather, the improvement is rooted in mathematical relationships and/or mental process to reduce error related to phase shifting. 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 well-understood, routine 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 – 3, 5, and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20200233076 A1) . As to claims 1, 11 and 15, Chen discloses a radar transceiver (Fig. 21) comprising : radar system comprising : transmit circuitry configurable to : transmit a first set of chirp signals in which each chirp signal of the first set of chirp signals has an induced phase shift, and transmit a second set of chirp signals (Fig. 21) ; receive circuitry configurable to receive reflected signals based on the transmitted first and second sets of chirp signals, and generate a first set of digital signals corresponding to the first set of chirp signals and a second set of digital signals corresponding to the second set of chirp signals (Fig. 21) ; and processing circuitry configurable to: perform Fourier Transform (FT) operations on the first set of digital signals to generate a first array, and perform FT operations on the second set of digital signals to generate a second array (Para. 18) , identify a first peak in the first array and a second peak in the second array representing an object in a field of view of the transmit circuitry, the first and second peaks being at corresponding positions in the first and second arrays (Fig. 13) , respectively, compare a phase of the first peak with a phase of the second peak, and determine an actual phase shift for the induced phase shift based on the comparison (Para. 67 “Once calculated, the estimated phase offset values may be used to compensate the values in the corresponding range-Doppler cells obtained from each transmitter-receiver pair of the antenna array.”) . As to claim 2, Chen discloses a radar system of claim 1, wherein each chirp signal of the second set of chirp signals has a phase of approximately zero (Fig. 1) . As to claims 3 and 12, Chen discloses a radar system of claim 1, wherein the FT operations performed on each of the first and second sets of chirp signals includes a range FT and a Doppler FT, and each of the first and second arrays is a range-Doppler array (Para. 71 2D FFT) . As to claim 5, Chen discloses a r adar system of claim 1, wherein the first and second sets of chirp signals constitute a frame of chirp signals (Para. 29) . As to claim 13, Chen discloses the processor-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions for identifying an object in a bin of the array, and identifying the object in a corresponding bin of the second array further comprises: identifying a peak in the bin of the first array, identifying a peak in the corresponding bin of the second array, the peaks representing the object (Para. 31) . As to claim 14, Chen discloses the pr ocessor-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions for comparing the phase of the object in the bin of the first array to the phase of the object in the corresponding bin of the second array further comprises: comparing the phase of the peak in the bin of the first array to the phase of the peak in the corresponding bin of the second array (Para. 67 as cited in base claim) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 4, 6 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen in view o Millar (US 20160146925 A1) . As to claim 4, Chen does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the chirp signals of the first set of chirp signals are interleaved with the chirp signals of the second set of chirp signals. In the same field, Millar teaches “receive interleaved chirp return signals from the receive antennas and to determine an azimuth angle to the target and a Doppler velocity of the target using the interleaved chirp return signals (Para. 14).” In view of the teachings of Millar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to interleave the signals in order to reduce ambiguities thereby improving doppler and velocity resolution. As to claims 6 and 16, Chen does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configurable to: identify additional peaks in the first array, and identify additional peaks in the second array positionally-corresponding to the additional peaks in the first array; compare a phase of each additional peak in the first array with a phase of the corresponding additional peak in the second array; determine a difference between the phase of the first peak and the phase of the second peak, and determine a difference in phase between each additional peak in the first array and the positionally-corresponding additional peak in the second array; and calculating an average phase shift based on the determined differences; wherein the actual phase shift for the induced phase shift is determined based on the average phase shift. In the same field, Millar teaches “the three antenna phase measurements can be combined and averaged to reduce the effect of phase noise on the received signals. In particular, if the distance from the target to the antennas is much larger than the antenna spacing, the return signals from the target can be viewed as a “plane wave” where the rays are parallel to each other. The phase seen at each antenna 82-86 is dependent on the antenna position and the angle of arrival. Because the angle of arrival is the same for each antenna 82-86, the three antenna position vs. phase linear relationships can be combined and averaged to reduce the effect of phase noise on the received signals. (Para. 66).” In view of the teachings of Millar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply averaging in order to reduce noise thus improving accuracy. To the extent necessary, the Examiner takes official notice that the process would be applied to any peak crossing the signal-to-noise threshold in order to reduce false target thus improving accuracy. As to claim 17, Chen dislcoses processor-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processing instructions further comprise instructions for determining a phase shift offset based on the average phase shift and the induced phase shift (The claims do not require the transmit circuitry, e.g., phase shifter, to induce phase shift thus this can be a natural phase shift caused via Doppler, and the averaging as taught by Millar would equally apply.) . Potentially Allowable Subject Matter Regarding claims 7 – 10 and 18 – 19, the induced phase shift is not caused by the circuitry, thus it would not be obvious to modify, rather the induced phase shift is caused by movement of the sensor. See Chen Para. 31. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F. 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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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. /MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 19/002,998 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights