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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-27-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reflections of Dokhanchi would not disclose or suggest receiving backscatter as a person in the art would understand the term. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The definition of backscatter is the reflection of a wave off of an object and back to the source. A reflection returning to the radar of Dokhanchi is the backscatter.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
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 § 103
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 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.
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) 1-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen, et. al,. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0221110, filed January 10, 2019 in view of Dokhanchi, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0055374, filed February 27, 2018.
As per claims 1 and 14, Vanderveen discloses a radio transceiver for communicating with one or more transceiver equipped targets, the transceiver comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit radio signals in a transmit frequency band,
a receiver configured to receive radio signals in a receive frequency band and
a detector to estimate a distance (Vanderveen, Fig. 2B and Fig. 5 where the ranging signal is the data signal);
wherein the radio transceiver is arranged to determine whether a transceiver equipped target is present (Vanderveen, Fig. 5, step 520) ,wherein the transmitter is arranged to transmit a data signal in case the transceiver equipped target is present (Vanderveen, Fig. 5, step 530).
Vanderveen fails to disclose a dummy signal and fails to disclose receiving backscatter to associate with a received radio signal.
Dokhanchi teaches transmission of a dummy signal as well as receiving backscatter (i.e. reflection from the transmitted wave) to associate various returns with other vehicles (¶21 and ¶38 where car 2 communicates via comms with car 3 and determines backscatter ranges from 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a continuous signal and receive backscatter, using the same transmitter, in order to gain the benefit of catching vehicles that come within range sooner as both the equipped vehicle and target vehicle are in motion and provide a return signal which does not rely on a vehicle answering back.
As per claim 2, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi discloses the radio transceiver [[(130)]] according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter [[(410)]] and the receiver [[(420)]] are part of one of a third generation partnership, a 3GPP, and a side-link communication system (Vanderveen, ¶138).
As per claim 3, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses The radio transceiver [[(130)]] according claim 1, wherein the transmitted radio frequency signals [[(TX)]] and the received radio frequency signals [[(RX)]] are orthogonal frequency division multiplex, OFDM, signals (Vanderveen, ¶138).
As per claim 4, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the radio transceiver [[(130)]] according to claim 1, wherein the transmitted radio frequency signals [[(TX)]] and the received radio frequency signals [[(RX)]] are single carrier frequency division multiplex, SC FDM, signals (Vanderveen, ¶138).
As per claims 5-8, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the transceiver receiving resource assignment and ranging transmission data from an access point (¶20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the radar performance limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 9, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the method of claim 1 including multiple transceivers pointed in different directions (Vanderveen, Fig. 2A, 215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use several transceivers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 10, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the radio transceiver [[(130)]] according to claim 1, arranged to associate a received radio signal [[(RX)]] in the receive frequency band [[(f2)]] with a detected backscattered radio signals [[(DET)]] in the transmit frequency band [[(f1)]] (Vanderveen, ¶76-77 and Dokhanchi, ¶21).
As per claim 11, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses a vehicle [[(110)]] comprising the radio transceiver [[(130)]] according to claim 1 (Vanderveen, Fig. 1).
As per claim 12, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the radio transceiver [[(130)]] is arranged on a bottom section [[(810)]] of the vehicle [[(110)]] (Vanderveen, Fig. 1, item 110a where the bumper is the bottom section of a vehicle).
As per claim 15, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses a computer program product [[(1100)]] comprising program code [[(1110)]] for performing the steps of claim 14 when said the program is run on a computer (Vanderveen, ¶21).
As per claims 16 and 17, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi further discloses the method according to claim 14 wherein determining whether the transceiver equipped target is present further includes receiving, by the receiver, the radio signals in the receive frequency band including a V2X transmission including vehicle data related to a target object (Vanderveen, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen and Dokhanchi as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Shan, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0219666, published July 18, 2019.
As per claims 18-21, Vanderveen as modified by Dokhanchi disclose transceiver of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the dummy signal being a PN code.
Shan teaches PN codes (¶29-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use PN codes in order to gain the benefit of using existing, well-known coding techniques for the coded signal described by Dokhanchi.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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