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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2020-0129018, filed on Oct. 6, 2020.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 9 and 11 have been entered.
Claims 8 and 10 are canceled.
New claims 18 – 20 are entered.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant cites to Para. 126 of Gulati wherein Gulati teaches that the slopes may be different. See Remarks Pg. 7. The word may suggest that the slopes can be different or may not be different. In fact, Gulati Fig. 7B comprises some chirps, e.g., 717b and 717c, that overlap and have the same slope. The claims do not require that each and every chirp have a different slope, or, alternately consist of chirps having a different slope. The claimed adjacent chirp signals refer back to the chirp signals having an identical slope, thus the claim only requires those specific adjacent chirps to be partially overlapped in time.
In view of amendments, the 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 15 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gulati (US 20190383925 A1) in view of Kimura (US 20170303156 A1).
As to claims 1, 9 and 11, Gulati discloses a terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver (Fig. 4 item 430); and
a processor (Fig. 4 item 440) coupled to the transceiver and configured to:
generate sequences for signals, map (Para. 78 “encode and symbol map”),
generate orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols including the complex symbols (Para. 33), and
transmit OFDM symbols (Fig. 4 item 434a),
wherein the signals comprise chirp signals having an identical slope on frequency time axes (Fig. 7 items 717b and 717c),
and adjacent chirp signals of the chirp signals are at least partly overlapped on a time axis (Fig. 7 shows that 717b and 717c having identical slope and partially overlapping in time. Para. 105 “chirps overlapping in the time domain.”).
Gulati does not teach complex.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches quadrature (complex) amplitude modulation (QAM) at Para. 68.
In view of the teachings of Kimura, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply QAM because it allows for four quadrants of information instead of two thereby increasing the amount of information to modulate thereby improving information robustness.
As to claims 2 and 12, Gulati in view of Kimura teaches the terminal of claim 1/11, wherein the processor is further configured to: receiving echo signals that are the chirp signals reflected by a neighbor vehicle; canceling, for each of the echo signals, interference caused by an (Gulati Paras. 48 and 66); and
estimating at least one of a distance to the neighbor vehicle, a direction for the neighbor vehicle, and a moving velocity of the neighbor vehicle by using the interference- cancelled echo signals (Para. 95 see also Para. 3: Obvious to use angle to improve resolution thereby improving separability of targets. It would also be obvious to use the mitigated interference echo to improve accuracy.).
Kimura teaches “when a user has a capability of interference cancellation and the reception power P.sub.n of a signal of the neighboring cell (an interfering signal) is greater than the reception power P.sub.p of a signal of the primary cell (a target signal), the communication quality Q.sub.p of the primary cell as a result of interference cancellation can be expressed as below (Para. 200).”
In view of Kimura, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to cancel neighboring interference in order to detect weaker signals thereby improving accuracy.
As to claims 4 and 14, Gulati in view of Kimura teaches the terminal of claim 1/11, wherein each of the sequences has a bandwidth of 12 resource blocks (RBs) (Gulati Para. 62 “RBs may span 12 sub-carriers …”).
As to claims 5 and 15, Gulati in view of Kimura teaches the terminal of claim 1/11, wherein REs allocated for each of the sequences include one RE per RB (Para. 61 wherein twelve subcarrier meets the scope of including one subcarrier (RE). Include is not the same as consist.).
As to claims 7 and 17, Gulati in view of Kimura teaches the terminal of claims 1/11, wherein a slope on frequency-time axes of the sequences and a number of REs allocated to each sequence are determined based on a communication environment of the terminal (Gulati Para. 100 Fig. 7B wherein the slopes are selected to reduce interference.).
As to claims 18 – 20, Gulati in view of kimura teaches the method of claims 1, 9 and 11 wherein each of the chirp signals is mapped to the REs, wherein each of the REs is included in a different resource block (RB) (Paras 34 “subcarrier spacing” and 64 “Each subcarrier may be modulated with data.”), and
wherein the REs comprise each symbol on the time axis and one sub-carrier per RB on the frequency axis (Paras 34 and 64 “In general, modulation symbols are sent in the frequency domain with OFDM and in the time domain with SC-FDM.”).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gulati in view of Kimura and in further view of Chen (US 20160099761 A1).
As to claims 3 and 13, Gulati in view of Kimura teaches the terminal of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: determining a direction for a neighbor vehicle by using echo signals that are received after the chirp signals are reflected by the neighbor vehicle (Gulati Para. 3 as cited above);
determining, based on the direction, a spatial domain filter sweeping range for spatial domain filter alignment with a terminal in the neighbor vehicle; and performing spatial domain filter alignment by using a plurality of transmission spatial domain filters that belong to the spatial domain filter sweeping range (Not taught).
In same field of endeavor, Chen teaches “All neighboring base stations coordinate control beam transmission for beacon signals with each other. The coordination can be achieved by beam alignment among different base stations, or adjusting transmitting power from base stations (Para. 22).” Also, Chen Fig. 1 shows multiple beams (sweeping range).
In view of Chen, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to beam align between transmitting devices in order to improving signal-to-noise SNR communication between said devices thereby improving accuracy.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gulati in view of Kimura and in further view of Schoor (US 20170131393 A1).
As to claims 6 and 16, Gulati in view of Kimura does not teach the terminal of claim 11, wherein an interval between the adjacent chirp signals is half of a time axis length of a single chirp signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Schoor teaches “A sufficiently high repetition rate of the short ramps is therefore necessary in order to arrive at an unambiguous determination of the relative velocity within a measurement region of the relative velocity. In particular, the time offset between successive short ramps must be less than half the period length of the Doppler frequency (Para. 8).”
In view of Schoor, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to modified the chirps to be less than one-half period in order to reduce velocity ambiguities thereby improving target velocity estimation accuracy.
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 MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F. 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on 571-270-5144. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648