DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2025 has been entered
No claims are amended.
Claims 2, 12, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2-11, 13-14, and 16-23 are pending this application.
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-9, 11-16, 18-19, and 21-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas (EP 3306339 A1) in view of Bordes et al (US 9772397 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andreas teaches a transmission control method comprising [0034]:
obtaining, for a first radar transmission by a first radar on a first frequency band, an initial transmission duration [0049-0050 for initial start times and monitoring times (durations)];
obtaining interference information of the first radar transmission, wherein the interference information comprises: [0028 for having cycle (initial) transmission times, 0035 for an observation period of a vehicle radar system using timing of chirp signals to avoid interference, 0038-0039],
a first degree to which the first radar transmission is interfered with on the first frequency band [0035 for an observation period of a vehicle radar system using timing of chirp signals to avoid interference, 0038-0039];
adjusting, based on the interference information, a next transmission duration of the first radar on the first frequency band [0033-0034 for using different parts of the band, 0050-0052 for reducing interference or lowering degree of interference].
Andreas fails to explicitly teach and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band; adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree; and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree.
Bordes has a radar sensing system for a vehicle includes at least one transmitter, at least one receiver, and a processor (abstract) and teaches and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band [col 14, lines 30-60 for hopping based on interference minimum thresholds];
adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60];
and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60 for ignoring transmission frequency with high level of interference].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the frequency calculations as taught by Bordes for the purpose to improve performance (Bordes, col 14, lines 30-60).
Regarding Claim 11, Andreas teaches transmission control method comprising sending, to an apparatus, interference information comprising [0034]:
a first degree to which the first radar transmission is interfered with on the first frequency band [0035 for an observation period of a vehicle radar system using timing of chirp signals to avoid interference, 0038-0039],
and a difference between a first transmission duration and an initial transmission duration of the first radar [0043-0045, 0052 for reducing interference or lowering degree of interference]
adjusting, based on the interference information, a next transmission duration of the first radar on the first frequency band [0033-0034 for using different parts of the band, 0050-0052 for reducing interference or lowering degree of interference].
Andreas fails to explicitly teach and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band; a quantity of interfering radars on the frequency band; adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree; and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree.
Bordes has a radar sensing system for a vehicle includes at least one transmitter, at least one receiver, and a processor (abstract) and teaches and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band [col 14, lines 30-60 for hopping based on interference minimum thresholds];
a quantity of interfering radars on the frequency band [col 14, lines 30-50];
adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60];
and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60 for ignoring transmission frequency with high level of interference].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the frequency calculations as taught by Bordes for the purpose to improve performance (Bordes, col 14, lines 30-60).
Regarding Claim 14, Andreas discloses a control apparatus, comprising: a processor [0031 for using a signal processing];
and a non-transitory storage medium configured to communicate with the processor and store instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the control apparatus to [0021]:
obtain interference information of a first radar transmission, wherein the interference information comprises [0035 for an observation period of a vehicle radar system using timing of chirp signals to avoid interference, 0038-0039]:
a first degree to which the first radar transmission is interfered with on a first frequency band [0035 for an observation period of a vehicle radar system using timing of chirp signals to avoid interference, 0038-0039].
and control, based on the interference information, radar transmission [0043-0045, 0052 for reducing interference or lowering degree of interference]
adjusting, based on the interference information, a next transmission duration of the first radar on the first frequency band [0033-0034 for using different parts of the band, 0050-0052 for reducing interference or lowering degree of interference].
Andreas fails to explicitly teach and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band; adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree; and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree.
Bordes has a radar sensing system for a vehicle includes at least one transmitter, at least one receiver, and a processor (abstract) and teaches and a second degree to which the first radar is interfered with by a radar on a second frequency band [col 14, lines 30-60 for hopping based on interference minimum thresholds];
adjusting when the first degree is less than the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60];
and selecting based on the interference information, the second frequency band for the next transmission when the first degree is greater than or equal to the second degree [col 14, lines 30-60 for ignoring transmission frequency with high level of interference].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the frequency calculations as taught by Bordes for the purpose to improve performance (Bordes, col 14, lines 30-60).
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Andreas fails to explicitly teach the interference information further comprises density information of interfering radars with on the first frequency band.
Lin has a radar unit for detecting an existence of interference (abstract) and teaches the interference information further comprises density information of interfering radars with on the first frequency band [0054 for means to calculate the number of sub-bands being jammed with interference].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the interference range calculations as taught by Lin for the purpose to define an optimal low number of candidate sub-bands that have low probability of being jammed (Lin, 0054).
Regarding Claim 4 and 16, Andreas teaches performing interference detection on the first frequency band to obtain the interference information [0033-0034 for using different parts of the band].
Regarding Claim 5, Andreas teaches receiving the interference information from a second apparatus comprising a second radar [0051 for using two transceivers, 0057].
Regarding Claim 7 and 18, Andreas teaches defining, based on the interference information, one or more interference thresholds [0044, 0049-0050 for different time ranges for interference signal].
Regarding Claim 8, Andreas teaches one or more interference thresholds based on the quantity of interfering radars [0040, for min and max tolerances, with 0070 calculating interference gradients or predefined thresholds].
Regarding Claim 9, Andreas teaches one or more interference thresholds are based on the first degree to which the first radar transmission is interfered with [0056 for allowing for monitoring predefined interference signals].
Regarding Claim 19, Andreas teaches the one or more interference threshold are either predefined or preconfigured [0043, for means to reduce interfering signal or change the signal threshold, with 0070 calculating interference gradients or predefined thresholds].
Regarding Claim 21, Andreas teaches the one or more interference thresholds are predefined [0043, for means to reduce interfering signal or change the signal threshold, with 0070 calculating interference gradients or predefined thresholds].
Regarding Claim 22, Andreas teaches the one or more interference thresholds are preconfigured [0043, for means to reduce interfering signal or change the signal threshold, with 0070 calculating interference gradients or predefined thresholds].
Regarding Claim 23, Andreas teaches defining, based on the interference information, one or more interference thresholds [0043, for means to reduce interfering signal or change the signal threshold, with 0070 calculating interference gradients or predefined thresholds].
Claims 6, 10, 17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas (EP 3306339 A1) in view of Bordes et al (US 9772397 B1), as applied to Claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Virtanen (WO 2019/013948 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, Andreas fails to explicitly teach the interference information from a second apparatus comprising a roadside unit
Virtanen has a method for provided for monitoring contextual and environmental parameters of an autonomous vehicle (abstract) and teaches the interference information from a second apparatus comprising a roadside unit [0076, 0093-0094].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the interference types as taught by Virtanen for the purpose to define an optimal low number of candidate sub-bands that have low probability of being jammed (Virtanen, 0075).
Regarding Claim 10 and 20, Andreas fails to explicitly teach performing interference detection on the second frequency band to obtain interference information.
Virtanen has a method for provided for monitoring contextual and environmental parameters of an autonomous vehicle (abstract) and teaches performing interference detection on the second frequency band to obtain interference information [0091 for means to change power modes for interference],
and wherein the second degree is higher than the first degree [0093-0094].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar interference techniques, as disclosed by Andreas, further including the interference types as taught by Virtanen for the purpose to define an optimal low number of candidate sub-bands that have low probability of being jammed (Virtanen, 0075).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
On page 8, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that interference comprising a second degree and adjusting based on that interference is not taught in the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Bordes discloses monitoring transmission frequencies and weighting (means to vary degrees) correlations values to minimize interference and relying on carrier frequencies hopping (switching frequency range) with [Bordes, col 14, lines 30-60]. Furthermore, Bordes teaches having the transmitter determine the frequency with lower interference than any other carrier frequency [Bordes, col 13, lines 1-15].
On page 9, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant argues the combination of references. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Andreas determines interference from both emitted and echoed signals and determines the best time and frequency and how to offset from the interfering signal [Andres, 0044 for determining offsets from interfering signal]. Bordes furthers the interference mitigation by switching to a carrier frequency containing less (lower degrees) interference [Bordes, col 2, lines 30-50].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights