DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 claim 24, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the determined interference detection information is put to use or output a concrete result.
Claim 25 is also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishigami et al (US 2016/0238694).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
438
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
314
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kishigami et al disclose in Fig 1, 7, and 10 above an apparatus comprising:
an interference detector (i.e. interference detection unit 38) configured to detect interference in a radar Received (Rx) signal (Fig 4 above; [0055]), the interference detector comprising:
an input (i.e. radar reception unit 30 with reception antenna 31) to receive Transmit (Tx) parameter information of a radar Tx signal (i.e. radar transmission unit 20), wherein the radar Rx signal is based on the radar Tx signal (Fig 7 above; [0033]; [0047]-[0048]); and a processor (i.e. processor or broadly reads on antenna system processing units 30a-30d) configured to determine interference detection information of an interfering signal based on the radar Rx signal and the Tx parameter information ([0055]-[0056]; [0140]), wherein the interference detection information comprises one or more signal parameters corresponding to a shape of the interfering signal, and interference level information to indicate a level of noise caused by the interfering signal in the radar Rx signal (i.e. Fig 7 shows both shape and noise level of interfering signal) ([0069]; [0105]); and
an output (i.e. “outputs to the interference determination unit 39”) to output the interference detection information (i.e. Fig 7 above shows the output of interference) ([0056]; [0069]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Kishigami et al disclose the processor is configured to determine an estimated interference signal based on the radar Rx signal and Tx parameter information, and to determine the one or more signal parameters of the interfering signal based on the estimated interference signal (Fig 4 and 10 above; [0055]-[0056]; [0069]; [0105]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 3, Kishigami et al disclose the processor is configured to determine an estimated Rx signal based on a correlation between the Tx parameter information and the radar Rx signal, and to determine the estimated interference signal based on the estimated Rx signal and the radar Rx signal ([0014]; [0054]; [0057]; [0075]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Kishigami et al disclose the processor is configured to determine a correlated signal by applying a correlation to the estimated interference signal, and to determine the one or more signal parameters of the interfering signal based on the correlated signal ([0014]; [0054]; [0057]; [0075]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 13, Kishigami et al disclose the processor is configured to determine the interference level information based on a level of detected noise in the radar Rx signal (Fig 10 above; [0069]; [0105]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 16, Kishigami et al disclose in Fig 1 above an Integrated Circuit (IC) comprising the interference detector and at least one Rx chain to provide to the processor a digital radar Rx signal based on a Radio Frequency (RF) radar Rx signal. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 17, Kishigami et al disclose in Fig 1 above an antenna connected to the Rx chain, the antenna to receive the RF radar Rx signal ([0047]-[0048]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 19, Kishigami et al disclose in Fig 1 above a radar processor (i.e. broadly reads on interference countermeasure control unit 13) configured to mitigate noise caused by the interfering signal in the radar Rx signal based on the one or more signal parameters ([0069]-[0074]; [0105]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claims 20-21 are rejected for the same reasons stated in the apparatus claims 1-2 above.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami et al.
Regarding claim 12, Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to determine the interference level information based on a level of a noise floor of the radar Rx signal. Instead, Kishigami teach in the same field of endeavor the processor is configured to determine the interference level information based on a level of detected noise in the radar Rx signal (Fig 10 above; [0105]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the interference level information based on a level of a noise floor of the radar Rx signal, since Applicant has not disclosed that determining the interference level information based on a level of a noise floor of the radar Rx signal solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the determine the interference level information based on a level of detected noise in the radar Rx signal as taught by Kishigami et al to effectively detecting interference in a system.
Claims 14-15, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami et al in view of KR 20210133689 (herein ‘689’ in which a machine translation in English is incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 14, and similarly claim 23, Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose the interference level information comprises a selected interference level value from a plurality of predefined interference level values, the selected interference level value to indicate the level of noise caused by the interfering signal relative to the plurality of predefined interference level values as claimed. ‘689’ teaches in the same field of endeavor the interference level information comprises a selected interference level value from a plurality of predefined interference level values, the selected interference level value to indicate the level of noise caused by the interfering signal relative to the plurality of predefined interference level values (i.e. pre-measured noise level) (page 5, second to last paragraph; page 7, last five paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kishigami et al in view of ‘689’ by incorporating such interference level information comprises a selected interference level value from a plurality of predefined interference level values, the selected interference level value to indicate the level of noise caused by the interfering signal relative to the plurality of predefined interference level values as taught by ‘689’ to gain advantage of effectively detecting and suppressing interference in a system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose the interference level information is configured to indicate a Signal to Interference Noise Ratio (SINR) of the radar Rx signal as claimed. ‘689’ teaches in the same field of endeavor the interference level information is configured to indicate a Signal to Interference Noise Ratio (SINR) of the radar Rx signal (page 7, last five paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kishigami et al in view of ‘689’ by incorporating such interference level information is configured to indicate a Signal to Interference Noise Ratio (SINR) of the radar Rx signal as taught by ‘689’ to gain advantage of effectively detecting and suppressing interference in a system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose the one or more signal parameters comprise at least one of a bandwidth of the interfering signal, a center frequency of the interfering signal, a slope of the interfering signal, or a duration of the interfering signal as claimed. ‘689’ teaches in the same field of the one or more signal parameters comprise a bandwidth of the interfering signal (i.e. broadly reads on the language of “at least one of” as claimed; “The noise power at the CW frequency or the FMCW frequency may be derived using the bandwidth the noise level (S505)”) (page 6, fifth to last paragraph; page 7, sixth to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kishigami et al in view of ‘689’ by incorporating such one or more signal parameters comprise a bandwidth of the interfering signal as taught by ‘689’ to gain advantage of effectively detecting and suppressing interference in a system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami et al in view of Sakamoto (US 2009/0096661).
Regarding claim 24, Kishigami et al disclose a vehicle (i.e. “A radar device according to the present disclosure can be applied to a moving body including a vehicle”) ([0142]) comprising:
a radar system (i.e. radar device 10) configured to generate the radar information (Fig 1 above; [0033]), the radar system comprising:
an antenna to transmit radar Tx signals (i.e. transmission antenna 26) (Fig 1 above; [0035]);
a plurality of Receive (Rx) antennas to receive radar Rx signals based on the radar Tx signals (i.e. reception antenna of each antenna system processing units 30a-30d. Fig 7 above shows a plurality receive antennas) (Fig 1 above; [0047]);
an interference detector (i.e. interference detection unit 38) to determine interference detection information of an interfering signal based on a radar Rx signal and based on Tx parameter information of a radar Tx signal (Fig 1 and 4 above; [0055]), wherein the interference detection information comprises one or more signal parameters corresponding to a shape of the interfering signal, and interference level information to indicate a level of noise caused by the interfering signal in the radar Rx signal (i.e. Fig 7 shows both shape and noise level of interfering signal) ([0069]; [0105]); and
a processor (i.e. processor or broadly reads on antenna system processing units 30a-30d) configured to determine the radar information based on the radar Rx signals and the interference detection information ([0055]-[0056]; [0140]).
Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose a plurality of Transmit (Tx) antennas to transmit radar Tx signals as claimed. Instead, Kishigami et al teach in the same field of endeavor a transmit antenna to transmit radar signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of Transmit (Tx) antennas to transmit radar Tx signals as claimed, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI 1969).
In addition still regarding claim 24, Kishigami et al do not explicitly disclose a system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on radar information as claimed. Sakamoto teaches in the same field of endeavor a system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on radar information ([0151]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kishigami et al in view of Sakamoto by incorporating such system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on radar information as taught by Sakamoto to gain advantage of effectively detecting and suppressing interference in a vehicle system and properly controlling the vehicle base on the radar or interference information of the radar; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claims 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami et al modified by Sakamoto as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of ‘689’.
Regarding claim 25, Kishigami et al modified by Sakamoto do not explicitly disclose the one or more signal parameters comprise at least one of a bandwidth of the interfering signal, a center frequency of the interfering signal, a slope of the interfering signal, or a duration of the interfering signal as claimed. ‘689’ teaches in the same field of the one or more signal parameters comprise a bandwidth of the interfering signal (i.e. broadly reads on the language of “at least one of” as claimed; “The noise power at the CW frequency or the FMCW frequency may be derived using the bandwidth the noise level (S505)”) (page 6, fifth to last paragraph; page 7, sixth to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kishigami et al modified by Sakamoto in view of ‘689’ by incorporating such one or more signal parameters comprise a bandwidth of the interfering signal as taught by ‘689’ to gain advantage of effectively detecting and suppressing interference in a system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-11, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,906,654 discloses signal processing circuitry includes at least one processor configured to obtain a digitized radar signal, and further configured, for one or more iterations, to: determine a first power of at least one first signal sample of the radar signal; determine a second power of at least one second signal sample of the radar signal, the at least one second signal sample being subsequent in time to the at least one first signal sample; and determine a difference value between the second power and the first power. The at least one processor further configured to detecting a burst interference signal occurring within the radar signal based on the one or more difference values from the one or more iterations.
US 11,899,125 discloses a radio frequency (RF) circuit includes an input terminal configured to receive a reception signal from an antenna; an output terminal configured to output a digital output signal; a receive path including a mixer and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), wherein the receive path is coupled to and between the input and output terminals, wherein the receive path includes an analog portion and a digital portion, and wherein the ADC generates a digital signal based on an analog signal received from the analog portion; a test signal generator configured to generate an analog test signal injected into the analog portion of the receive path; and a digital processor configured to receive a digital test signal from the digital portion, the digital test signal being derived from the analog test signal, analyze a frequency spectrum of the digital test signal, and determine a quality of the digital test signal.
US 11,988,766 discloses technologies that are configured to identity detections output by a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar system that are caused by an interfering signal. The detections are detected as being caused by an interferer based upon numbers of detections assigned to bins in a velocity-direction histogram.
US 12,164,053 discloses methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to manage automotive radar coordination. An example apparatus includes a resource manager to retrieve radar unit requirements, the radar unit requirements including at least one of a unit ID, current time information, vehicle position, and radar resource requirements, a resource multiplexer to perform at least one of time multiplexing and frequency multiplexing according to the radar resource requirements, and a resource hopper to at least perform one of frequency hopping and time hopping in response to detecting an amount of interference from other vehicles that exceeds an interference threshold.
US 2020/0191911 discloses a method which can be used in a radar system. According to one example implementation, the method comprises providing a digital baseband signal using a radar receiver. The baseband signal comprises a plurality of segments, wherein each segment is assigned to a chirp of an emitted chirp sequence and each segment comprises a specific number of samples. For each signal sequence of n samples of the segments, where n in each case denotes a specific sample position within the respective segment, the method comprises the following: detecting interference-affected samples of the signal sequence; splitting the signal sequence into two or more sub-band signal sequences, wherein each sub-band signal sequence is assigned in each case to a frequency sub-band; replacing interference-affected samples in the two or more sub-band signal sequences in each case with a value which is based on adjacent samples in order to obtain corrected sub-band signal sequences; and determining a corrected signal sequence of n samples of the segments based on the corrected sub-band signal sequences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646