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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2-4-2026 is being 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 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 30 is directed towards a series of mathematical steps and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 30 is directed to a method of, and computer system for, signal processing that is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claims 31-33 discloses further signal processing steps. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
The method recited in claims 30-33 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0070205, published March 12, 2015.
As per claim 16, Chang discloses the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor, comprising:
a signal generator configured to generate a Frequency Modulated (FM) signal whose frequency changes over time; a transmitting antenna configured to transmit the FM signal generated by the signal generator; a receiving antenna configured to receive a reflected signal of an FM signal reflected from an object (Chang, ¶41-42 and Fig. 3, items 131 and 101);
a frequency mixer configured to output a difference between the FM signal and the reflected signal (Chang, Fig. 8 and ¶41-42);
and a filter configured to extract an intermediate frequency component from an output of the frequency mixer (Chang, Fig. 3, item 120).
As per claim 17, Chang discloses the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor of claim 16, further comprising an extractor configured to obtain an envelope of the extracted intermediate frequency component (Chang, Fig. 3, 141).
As per claim 18, Chang discloses the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor of claim 17, wherein the extractor is configured to obtain the envelope by demodulating or Hilbert transforming the extracted intermediate frequency component (Chang, ¶54-56).
As per claim 19, Chang discloses the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor of claim 16, further comprising a second filter configured to pass only a specific band from an output of the frequency mixer (Chang, ¶56).
As per claim 20, Chang discloses the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor of claim 19, wherein the second filter is a low pass filter (Chang, ¶56).
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) 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kuo, et. al., U.S. patent Application Publication Number 2022/0012467, published January 13, 2022.
As per claims 21 and 30, Chang discloses the radar operation as discussed in claim 13, including the receiving part and radar sensor (Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly disclose acquiring characteristics of the target.
Kuo teaches use of FMCW to identify characteristics of a target (¶58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to identify the target in order to gain the benefit of determining whether or not to active the light.
As per claim 22, Chang as modified by Kuo discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor further comprises an extractor configured to obtain an envelope of the extracted intermediate frequency component (Chang, Fig. 3, 141).
As per claim 23, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the extractor is configured to obtain the envelope by demodulating or Hilbert transforming the extracted intermediate frequency component (Chang, ¶54-56).
As per claim 24, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 22, further comprising a memory configured to store data that maps envelope waveforms of each type of object, wherein the controller is configured to obtain a type of object having a waveform similar to the envelope obtained by the extractor from the memory (Kuo, ¶58).
As per claim 25, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 24, further comprising a display configured to output the obtained object (Kuo, ¶67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a display in order to gain the benefit of showing status of object detected.
As per claim 26, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the data includes a plurality of envelope waveforms for each type of object according to state of each object (Chang, ¶54-56).
As per claim 27, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 26, wherein the controller is configured to obtain a type and state of objects accommodated in the space (Kuo, ¶67).
As per claim 28, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the frequency modulated continuous wave radar sensor further comprises a second filter configured to pass only a specific band from an output of the frequency mixer (Chang, ¶56).
As per claim 29, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the electronic device of claim 28, wherein the second filter is a low pass filter (Chang, ¶56).
As per claim 31, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the operating method of an electronic device of claim 30, further comprising: obtaining an envelope of the extracted intermediate frequency component, and the obtaining of the characteristics of the object includes obtaining the characteristics of the object using the envelope (Cheng, ¶54-56).
As per claim 32, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the operating method of an electronic device of claim 30, further comprising: displaying the characteristics of the object (Kuo, ¶67).
As per claim 32, Chang as modified by Kuo further discloses the operating method of an electronic device of claim 30, wherein the displaying of the characteristics of the object comprises displaying lighting of a detection area in different colors depending on the characteristics of the object (Kuo, ¶35).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use various colors in order to gain the benefit of separating objects as discussed by Kuo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
