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 02/26/2026, 12/25/2025, 06/27/2025, 04/30/2025, 05/16/2023, 03/15/2023, 11/17/2022 and 09/29/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 1236 ” has been used to designate both the Radar Processor and one of the Baseband processing units in Figure 12 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities : In Paragraphs [00482]-[00488] and [00492]-[00493], replace reference number “1236” with the reference number used to identify the mislabeled BPU in Figure 12. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 3, “standby BUs” should read “standby BPUs” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding c laims 1 , 21 and 24 , the claim elements lack logical consistency by presenting limitations concerning “processing resources” which seem to define themselves through a “ RH to resource (RH-resource) allocation scheme ”, the claim elements taken together seem to present a tautology. T he functional limitation s presented to define the “ Baseband Processing Units (BPUs) ” claim element begin with “ comprising processing resources configured to … processing … according to … baseband - processing tasks ” and proceeds through two “wherein” claim elements to a final “wherein” claim element which states “ a RH-specific resource allocation for an RH is to define … processing resources to perform … baseband-processing tasks ” . The claims are centered on five limitations: “processing resources”, “baseband-processing tasks”, “RH-resource allocation scheme ”, “RH-specific resource allocations” and “ RH-allocated processing resources ”. These limitations are n ot defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding “processing resources”, the limitation is not defined by the claim l anguage, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification discloses general properties of the claimed processing resource s, see [00421] ( [00421] In some demonstrative aspects, radar system 1101 may be configured to support placing digital signal processing components (also referred to as "main units", "radar processing engines", and/or "processing resources") of some or even all of theplurality of RHs tt10 in a shared processor 1136 ) and [00525] ( [00525] In some demonstrative aspects, a HW engine, e.g., each HW engine in a chip, e.g., the shared resource, may be utilized to process one or more stages/sub-stages of the plurality of BB-processing tasks of sequence 1302. ), the term is not defined. Is it exclusively a hardware structure or is there a software component as well? W hat does a “digital processing component” actually require in this context? Are the different resources different physical components? Different software routines? Different time periods for processing? [00525] suggests a “HW engine” as an example of a “shared resource” but is not found to define such an “engine”. In general it is not clear what these “resources” are to the extent that they constitute a BPU. Regarding the remaining claim limitations: “RH-resource allocation scheme ”, “RH-specific resource allocations” and “ RH-allocated processing resources ”. There is no algorithm or flow chart presented for the “allocation scheme”, the specification presents an example calculation of determining the number of radar channels which can be processed by a shared resource given an estimated time to perform the processing task ([00525]- [00530]). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Are the “ RH-allocated processing resources ” the same processing resources as claimed earlier? Is the “RH-specific resource allocations” a sub-scheme within the greater “allocation” scheme? Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation s to be imposed on the invention. Claims 2-20, 22-23 and 25 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim. 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 1-25 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. Claims 1-25 recite a n apparatus, vehicle and computer product for generating radar information from radar data through performing a plurality of baseband processing tasks by computing resources allocated through an “allocation scheme” . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 Bank Int’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)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski , 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener , 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr , the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr , 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook ); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M] erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Analysis Step 1 – Statutory Category Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a n apparatus . Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 21 (and its dependents) recites a vehicle comprising the apparatus . Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 24 (and its dependent) recites a computer product to carry out the generating of radar information from radar data . Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. 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. As set forth above, claims 1 , 2 1 and 24 recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of: generate radar information by processing the radar Rx information according to a plurality of baseband- processing tasks ; allocate the plurality of processing resources to the plurality of RHs based on an RH to resource (RH-resource) allocation scheme ; define a plurality of RH-specific resource allocations for the plurality of RHs ; and define a plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform the plurality of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the RH. The step of “ generate radar data… ” may be performed by process ing data signals (i.e. radar data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion . The step of “ allocate…processing resources,,,based on an…allocation scheme ” is merely processing step which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Similarly, t he step s of “ define … resource allocations ” and “define … processing resources ” are processing step s which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. In addition, dependent claims 2- 15, 17- 20, 22-23 and 25 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process (i.e. claim s 2 -8, 22, and 25 – “ allocate a shared processing resource ”; claim s 9-11, 17 and 23 – details of “allocated processing resources”; claims 12 and 20 – limiting the baseband processing tasks; claims 13-15 – variations on how Baseband processing units (BPU) are allocated ; and claims 18-19 – updating the resource allocation scheme ) and therefore, also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. 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. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The only additional elements of claim 1 is “ a radar processor comprising: an input to receive radar Receive (Rx) information based on radar Rx signals received by a plurality of Radio Heads (RHs); and one or more Baseband Processing Units (BPUs) comprising a plurality of processing resources ” and for claim 16 is “ a data switch configured to selectively switch the radar Rx information from the plurality of RHs to the plurality of BPUs according to the RH-resource allocation scheme ”. Claim 4 requires “an output control section that controls output of predetermined physical quantities to the object.”. Claim 5 specifies “wherein the object includes a human body.” Claim 12 specifies “wherein the one or more second baseband- processing tasks comprise an Angle of Arrival ( AoA ) processing task”. 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. Such steps, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data gathering steps by receiving certain signal/data to be analyzed. As such, such steps are insignificant extra¬-solution activity to the judicial exception . The radar processor, bandpass-processing units, and processing resources are recited at a high level of generality. The y are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Step 2B – Inventive Concept For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. As stated above, claims 1-25 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The application of the abstract idea s 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 because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for generating radar information, allocating computing resources, and defining the allocation of computer resources which requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . 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). As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. 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. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-11, 1 6 - 20 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Shea (US 20210136596) as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above . Regarding claim 1, O’Shea discloses a n apparatus comprising: a radar processor comprising: an input ( [0064] The target hardware platform 110 can then take in input information dataflow 103 in the form of tensors ) to receive radar Receive (Rx) information based on radar Rx signals received by a plurality of Radio Heads (RHs) ( [0064] This input tensor data may include radio signals such as digitally sampled In-Phase and Quadrature time series numbers, … , power frequency information such as spectrograms, radar data-cube processing information such as pulse integration, or output of other software processes that may produce vectors of bits, packets, messages, samples or values. ) ; and one or more Baseband Processing Units (BPUs) comprising a plurality of processing resources ( [0058] The target hardware platform 110 may include a single processor; multiple processors of the same type; a shared memory architecture with multiple types of co-processors, e.g., multiple processors of multiple types ) configured to generate radar information by processing the radar Rx information according to a plurality of baseband-processing tasks ( [0054] The operation placement and scheduling systems and methods can be used to create a radio signal processing system for processing radar signals in order to generate pulses, receive pulse responses, and estimate properties of reflecting items. ) , wherein the one or more BPUs are configured to allocate the plurality of processing resources to the plurality of RHs based on an RH to resource (RH-resource) allocation scheme ( [0064] The system then provides runtime resource scheduling information 108 to the target hardware platform 110 for optimal execution of the specific radio signal processing application 102 on the target hardware platform 110. The runtime resource scheduling information 108 may be an efficient mapping/realization, which may include processor assignments of kernels, buffer sizes, locations and references between kernels, memory transfer instructions between separated memory domains, orders and/or size of work (e.g. number of items processed) for software kernels, etc. ) , wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to define a plurality of RH-specific resource allocations for the plurality of RHs ( [0055] radio signal processing functionality can be deployed on one or more radio receivers, one or more radar processors, one or more radio transmitters, or another hardware platform or combination of hardware platforms. ) , respectively, wherein an RH-specific resource allocation for an RH is to define a plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform the plurality of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the RH ( [0065] Commonly-used signal processing operations can include a finite impulse response filter, a fast Fourier transform, an infinite impulse response filter, an automatic gain control, a synchronization or demodulation algorithm, an error correction decoding algorithm, a beam steering or multi-antenna combining algorithm, or another high level signal processing operation. ) . Regarding claim 2, O’Shea discloses t he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to allocate a shared processing resource to be shared by two or more RH- specific resource allocations for two or more respective RHs ( [0064] The runtime resource scheduling information 108 may be an efficient mapping/realization, which may include processor assignments of kernels, buffer sizes, locations and references between kernels, memory transfer instructions between separated memory domains, orders and/or size of work (e.g. number of items processed) for software kernels, etc. ) , the shared processing resource to perform a baseband-processing task based on radar Rx information from the two or more RHs ( [0065] The operation placement and scheduling system 100 represents a radio signal processing application using functional tensor blocks (202a-202c) as illustrated in FIG. 2. Each functional tensor block (202a-c) represents a commonly-used signal processing operation that acts on input tensor data (201) and produces tensor output (203). ) . Regarding claim 3 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to allocate the shared processing resource to sequentially perform the baseband-proce s s ing task by sequentially processing the radar Rx information from the two or more RHs during a respective sequence of two or more time periods ( [0094] FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate example systems in which resources and kernel placements are defined by runtime resource scheduling in order to efficiently execute operations on the target platform to achieve optimized execution. FIG. 9A illustrates an example tensor dataflow-based radio receiver system 900a ) . Regarding claim 4 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the radar processor is configured to schedule sequential transmission of radar Tx signals to be transmitted by the two or more RHs based on the sequence of time periods ( [0094] FIG. 9B illustrates an example tensor dataflow-based radio transmitter system 900b. Both of these systems can be created using the process 600 described above. ) . Regarding claim 5 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to allocate a plurality of shared processing resources to be shared by the two or more RH-specific resource allocations, the plurality of shared processing resources to perform two or more baseband-processing sequences corresponding to the two or more RHs ( [0077] FIG. 7 illustrates an example distribution of software kernels across multiple processing units of a target hardware platform. In this example, the system assigns one core of Processor A, e.g., processor A1 740a, to execute Kernel 1 722a. Processor B may have multiple cores 760a-760n that process software kernel Kernel 2 722b, while additional cores of processor A (e.g., processor cores 780a-780n) process software kernel Kernel 3 722c. ) , wherein a baseband-processing sequence corresponding to an RH of the two or more RHs comprises a sequence of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the RH of the two or more RHs ( [0094] FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate example systems in which resources and kernel placements are defined by runtime resource scheduling in order to efficiently execute operations on the target platform to achieve optimized execution. FIG. 9A illustrates an example tensor dataflow-based radio receiver system 900a ) . Regarding claim 6 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to schedule the two or more baseband-processing sequences to begin at two or more staggered sequence-start times, respectively ( [0085] In addition to determining software kernel partitioning, the system defines runtime resource scheduling to efficiently execute operations on a target hardware platform 606. Defining runtime resource scheduling includes determining data placement for individual software kernels across processing units of the target hardware platform. ) . Regarding claim 7 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the two or more staggered sequence-start times are based on a duration of a longest baseband-processing task in the sequence of baseband-processing tasks ( [0085] In addition to determining placement for the software kernels, the system may also determine buffer sizes between kernels, determine the amount of data on which each software kernel should execute at a given time, determine an order in which the software kernels should execute, ) . Regarding claim 8 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to allocate the shared processing resource to perform the baseband-processing task by processing together the radar Rx information from the two or more RHs as radar Rx information of an antenna array formed by antennas of the two or more RHs ( [0065] Commonly-used signal processing operations can include a finite impulse response filter, a fast Fourier transform, an infinite impulse response filter, an automatic gain control, a synchronization or demodulation algorithm, an error correction decoding algorithm, a beam steering or multi-antenna combining algorithm, or another high level signal processing operation. ) . Regarding claim 9 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radar processor comprises a plurality of BPUs, wherein a BPU of the plurality of BPUs comprises one or more processing resources to perform one or more baseband-processing tasks, wherein the RH-specific resource allocation for the RH is to define the plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to include processing resources of at least one BPU of the plurality of BPUs ( [0077] FIG. 7 illustrates an example distribution of software kernels across multiple processing units of a target hardware platform. In this example, the system assigns one core of Processor A, e.g., processor A1 740a, to execute Kernel 1 722a. Processor B may have multiple cores 760a-760n that process software kernel Kernel 2 722b, while additional cores of processor A (e.g., processor cores 780a-780n) process software kernel Kernel 3 722c. ) . Regarding claim 10 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the RH-specific resource allocation for the RH is to define the plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to include first processing resources of a first BPU to perform one or more first baseband-processing tasks based on the radar Rx information from the RH, and second processing resources of a second BPU to perform one or more second baseband-processing tasks based on an output of the first baseband-processing tasks ( [0077] FIG. 7 illustrates an example distribution of software kernels across multiple processing units of a target hardware platform. In this example, the system assigns one core of Processor A, e.g., processor A1 740a, to execute Kernel 1 722a. Processor B may have multiple cores 760a-760n that process software kernel Kernel 2 722b, while additional cores of processor A (e.g., processor cores 780a-780n) process software kernel Kernel 3 722c. ) . Regarding claim 11 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the RH-specific resource allocation for the RH is to define the plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to include third processing resources of the first BPU to perform one or more third baseband-processing tasks based on an output of the second baseband-processing tasks ( [0077] FIG. 7 illustrates an example distribution of software kernels across multiple processing units of a target hardware platform. In this example, the system assigns one core of Processor A, e.g., processor A1 740a, to execute Kernel 1 722a. Processor B may have multiple cores 760a-760n that process software kernel Kernel 2 722b, while additional cores of processor A (e.g., processor cores 780a-780n) process software kernel Kernel 3 722c. ) . Regarding claim 16, O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 9 comprising a data switch ( [0003] A target hardware platform can include computing devices with a single processor or multiple processors connected using network connections, memories, or buses. ) configured to selectively switch the radar Rx information from the plurality of RHs to the plurality of BPUs according to the RH-resource allocation scheme ( [0064] The system then provides runtime resource scheduling information 108 to the target hardware platform 110 for optimal execution of the specific radio signal processing application 102 on the target hardware platform 110. ) . Regarding claim 17, O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is to define a first RH-specific resource allocation for a first RH and a second RH-specific resource allocation for a second RH ( [0090] In order to define efficient runtime scheduling, the system may also take into consideration other processes that are running on the target hardware platform or will be concurrently executed by the target system. In one implementation, the other process may be a second application that is also represented as a primitive radio signal processing computational dataflow graph. ) , wherein the first RH-specific resource allocation is to define a first plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform a first plurality of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the first RH, wherein the second RH-specific resource allocation is to define a second plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform a second plurality of baseband- processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the second RH ( [0090] In this case, the system may identify specific runtime scheduling for both computational dataflow graphs that achieve specified optimization objectives when both computational dataflow graphs are executing in the target system. ) . Regarding claim s 18 and 19 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radar processor is configured to update the RH-resource allocation scheme ; and w herein the radar processor is configured to update the RH-resource allocation scheme based on a change in at least one of a processing load corresponding to the radar Rx information from the RH, or a change in a processing load of a BPU ( [0014] In some implementations, partitioning the nodes and directed edges of the primitive radio signal processing computational dataflow graph to produce a set of software kernels includes predicting an initial set of software kernels that minimizes an aggregate resource use of the processing units, measuring resource use of the processing unit having the initial set of software kernels, and changing the partitioning to produce an updated set of software kernels that achieves an optimization objective based on the measured resource use ) . Regarding claim 2 0 , O’Shea discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of baseband-processing tasks comprises at least one of a range processing task, a Doppler processing task, an Angle of Arrival ( AoA ) processing task, a target detection processing task, or a post processing task post the target detection processing task ( [0070] Some example radio signal processing applications include: … a radar processor (e.g., pulse generation and integration, analysis, and state machine or optimization-driven dynamic control behavior), … , a radar or sensing application, … an application that processes radio frequency sample data in order to infer information underlying the data (e.g. corresponding objects, behaviors, potential threats, device failures or anomalies, etc.). ) . Regarding claim 24, O’Shea discloses a product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising computer-executable instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a radar processor to: receive radar Receive (Rx) information based on radar Rx signals received by a plurality of Radio Heads (RHs) ( [0064] This input tensor data may include radio signals such as digitally sampled In-Phase and Quadrature time series numbers, …, power frequency information such as spectrograms, radar data-cube processing information such as pulse integration, or output of other software processes that may produce vectors of bits, packets, messages, samples or values. ) ; and control one or more Baseband Processing Units (BPUs) comprising a plurality of processing resources ( [0058] The target hardware platform 110 may include a single processor; multiple processors of the same type; a shared memory architecture with multiple types of co-processors, e.g., multiple processors of multiple types ) to generate radar information by processing the radar Rx information according to a plurality of baseband-processing tasks ( [0054] The operation placement and scheduling systems and methods can be used to create a radio signal processing system for processing radar signals in order to generate pulses, receive pulse responses, and estimate properties of reflecting items. ) , wherein controlling the one or more BPUs comprises allocating the plurality of processing resources to the plurality of RHs based on an RH to resource (RH-resource) allocation scheme ( [0064] The system then provides runtime resource scheduling information 108 to the target hardware platform 110 for optimal execution of the specific radio signal processing application 102 on the target hardware platform 110. The runtime resource scheduling information 108 may be an efficient mapping/realization, which may include processor assignments of kernels, buffer sizes, locations and references between kernels, memory transfer instructions between separated memory domains, orders and/or size of work (e.g. number of items processed) for software kernels, etc. ) , wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to define a plurality of RH-specific resource allocations for the plurality of RHs ( [0055] radio signal processing functionality can be deployed on one or more radio receivers, one or more radar processors, one or more radio transmitters, or another hardware platform or combination of hardware platforms. ) , respectively, wherein an RH-specific resource allocation for an RH is to define a plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform the plurality of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the RH ( [0065] Commonly-used signal processing operations can include a finite impulse response filter, a fast Fourier transform, an infinite impulse response filter, an automatic gain control, a synchronization or demodulation algorithm, an error correction decoding algorithm, a beam steering or multi-antenna combining algorithm, or another high level signal processing operation. ) . Regarding claim 25, O’Shea discloses the product of claim 24, wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to allocate a shared processing resource to be shared by two or more RH- specific resource allocations for two or more respective RHs ( [0064] The runtime resource scheduling information 108 may be an efficient mapping/realization, which may include processor assignments of kernels, buffer sizes, locations and references between kernels, memory transfer instructions between separated memory domains, orders and/or size of work (e.g. number of items processed) for software kernels, etc. ), the shared processing resource to perform a baseband-processing task based on radar Rx information from the two or more RHs ( [0065] The operation placement and scheduling system 100 represents a radio signal processing application using functional tensor blocks (202a-202c) as illustrated in FIG. 2. Each functional tensor block (202a-c) represents a commonly-used signal processing operation that acts on input tensor data (201) and produces tensor output (203). ). 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Shea (US 20210136596) in view of Bensky ( Bensky , Alan. Wireless Positioning Technologies and Applications (2nd Edition) – Chapter 7. Angle of Arrival. Artech House. Pg.213- 250, (2016)), as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above . Regarding claim 12 , O’Shea discloses t he apparatus of claim 10, accordingly the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated . O’Shea fails to explicitly disclose that the one or more second baseband-processing tasks comprise an Angle of Arrival ( AoA ) processing task. Bensky teaches that it is known in the art that the AoA measurement is one of the most established and simplest radar measurement techniques ( Page 2 13 , line 12 ; AOA is a principal component in a radar system. ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include AoA estimation as one of the radar processing tasks because it is a well established technique that is not dependent on the RF modulation characteristics nor does it require stringent receiver timing as noted by Parker ( Page 213, lines 5-10; Generally, AOA is not restricted by the problems dictating conditions of use of other location methods. It requires no cooperation from the target, and any type of signal can be used, including continuous wave (CW). It also is used over wide frequency bands and ranges-from high frequency (HF) through microwave and from direct true line of sight to long communications distances propagated through the ionosphere. ) see ( Page 249, lines 1-3; The AOA method of wireless location has several advantages compared to TOF methods. It does not require cooperation with the target emitter nor is it dependent on particular modulation characteristics or stringent receiver timing. ) as well. Claim (s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Shea (US 20210136596) , as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above . Regarding claims 13 -15, O’Shea discloses t he apparatus of claim 9, accordingly the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated . O’Shea discloses the claimed invention except for the RH-specific resource allocation for the RH is to define a second BPU as a redundant BPU to be allocated to the RH based on a failure of the first BPU ; or wherein, based on a failure of a first BPU, the RH-resource allocation scheme is to allocate a second BPU to process the radar Rx information from the one or more first RHs and the radar Rx information from the one or more second RHs ; or wherein based on a failure of a BPU of one or more first BPUs, the RH-resource allocation scheme is to allocate at least one BPU of one or more second BPUs to process radar Rx information from one or more RHs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the redundancy-based resource allocation schemes described in claims 13-15 , since it has been held that duplication of parts which perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. Neither the claims nor the specification ( [00587] - [00595] ) of the instant application specify anything further than duplication of existing parts, there is no disclosure of what constitutes a failure of a BPU, how a failure is determined, or steps taken (apparatus structure) to transfer the processing task to the standby BPU or processing resource. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . Claim (s) 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Shea (US 20210136596) in view of Parker ( Michael Parker, Chapter 20 - Automotive Radar, Editor(s): Michael Parker, Digital Signal Processing 101 (Second Edition), Newnes , Pages 253-276, 2017 ) , as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above . Regarding claim 21 , O’Shea teaches a radar processor configured to generate the radar information, the radar processor comprising: an input ([0064] The target hardware platform 110 can then take in input information dataflow 103 in the form of tensors) to receive radar Receive (Rx) information based on radar Rx signals received by a plurality of Radio Heads (RHs) ( [0064] This input tensor data may include radio signals such as digitally sampled In-Phase and Quadrature time series numbers, …, power frequency information such as spectrograms, radar data-cube processing information such as pulse integration, or output of other software processes that may produce vectors of bits, packets, messages, samples or values. ); and one or more Baseband Processing Units (BPUs) comprising a plurality of processing resources ( [0058] The target hardware platform 110 may include a single processor; multiple processors of the same type; a shared memory architecture with multiple types of co-processors, e.g., multiple processors of multiple types ) configured to generate radar information by processing the radar Rx information according to a plurality of baseband-processing tasks ( [0054] The operation placement and scheduling systems and methods can be used to create a radio signal processing system for processing radar signals in order to generate pulses, receive pulse responses, and estimate properties of reflecting items. ), wherein the one or more BPUs are configured to allocate the plurality of processing resources to the plurality of RHs based on an RH to resource (RH-resource) allocation scheme ( [0064] The system then provides runtime resource scheduling information 108 to the target hardware platform 110 for optimal execution of the specific radio signal processing application 102 on the target hardware platform 110. The runtime resource scheduling information 108 may be an efficient mapping/realization, which may include processor assignments of kernels, buffer sizes, locations and references between kernels, memory transfer instructions between separated memory domains, orders and/or size of work (e.g. number of items processed) for software kernels, etc. ), wherein the RH-resource allocation scheme is configured to define a plurality of RH-specific resource allocations for the plurality of RHs ( [0055] radio signal processing functionality can be deployed on one or more radio receivers, one or more radar processors, one or more radio transmitters, or another hardware platform or combination of hardware platforms. ), respectively, wherein an RH-specific resource allocation for an RH is to define a plurality of RH-allocated processing resources to perform the plurality of baseband-processing tasks based on radar Rx information from the RH ( [0065] Commonly-used signal processing operations can include a finite impulse response filter, a fast Fourier transform, an infinite impulse response filter, an automatic gain control, a synchronization or demodulation algorithm, an error correction decoding algorithm, a beam steering or multi-antenna combining algorithm, or another high level signal processing operation. ). O’Shea fails to teach a vehicle comprising: a system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on radar information; and a radar system configured to generate the radar information. However, Parker teaches a vehicle comprising: a system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on radar information; and a radar system configured to generate the radar information ( Pg. 253, lines 1-5; Automotive radar systems are the primary sensor used in adaptive cruise control and are a critical sensor system in autonomous driving assistance systems (ADAS). In ADAS, automotive radar is one of the several sensor systems for collision avoidance, pedestrian and cyclist detection, and complements vision based camera-sensing systems. ) , the radar system comprising: a plurality of R