CTNF 19/041,268 CTNF 86788 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. 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. Claims 1-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s): Step 1: With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims an apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention. Step 2A prong 1, In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1, is described below. The limitations of the claim that describes an abstract idea are bolded. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: obtain sets of measurement results of sensing of an environment of which clutter components have been determined; transform, per a set, multi-dimensional representations of echo signals received as measurement results of the set at least partly into one-dimensional echo signals ( Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi) ) ; and determine second clutter components based at least on corresponding one- dimensional echo signals and a clutter matrix representation that comprises elements obtained from previously determined clutter components of the environment ( Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)) . The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. The limitations as analyzed also include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. Step 2A prong 2, Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b))), cause the apparatus to at least: obtain sets of measurement results of sensing of an environment of which clutter components have been determined (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible. Step 2B, The claim include additional elements “a processor” and “a memory”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity: • Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) • Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 • Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 Hence, the additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims. Regarding dependent claims 2-13. Claims 2-13 further describe concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. There are no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 1. As per claims 15-16, please see the analysis of claim 1, Furthermore, Claim 15 include additional elements “a computer-readable medium” and “an apparatus”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Similar analysis is applicable to claim 16. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. 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. Claims 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the specification does not exclude transitory embodiments as a possible meaning of a computer readable medium, the claimed “A computer readable medium” in claim 15, covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments . Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Amendments may be made to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the computer readable medium” in claim 15. Examiner’s Note: Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the response to the rejection under 35 USC § 101. Pertinent Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Taghizadeh (US PGPUB 2025/0374235 A1) reference discloses configuration of sensing-related nodes with knowledge of a background environment related to specific radio sensing scenarios to assist in sensing receiver processing. Knowledge of features of a background environment, for example, assists in mitigating the impact of clutter reflections on detection of a target object. Further, knowledge of features of a background environment can be used as assistance information for extracting sensing information for target objects, such as based on information pertaining to signal interactions (e.g., signal reflection, signal blockage, etc.) between a background environment and target objects. Jeon (US PGPUB 2022/0256519 A1) reference discloses coexistence of radar sensing and wireless communications, potentially in overlapping frequency bands. Tong (US PGPUB 2017/0254895 A1) reference discloses a system and method for general long object detection using sensor fusion. Hyman (US PGPUB 2016/0061938 A1) reference discloses wideband radar systems with fast signal processing to detect certain types of targets in crowded and cluttered areas that challenge conventional radar architectures and signal processing methods. Multiple data sets are collected from at least one receiver within a radar system. Various weighting parameters are applied to the data sets to reduce the effect of clutter objects . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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. /SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 2 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 3 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 4 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 5 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 6 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 7 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/041,268 Page 8 Art Unit: 2633
Prosecution Insights