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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-26, 28, and 30-31 remain pending in this application. Claims 8, 15, 22, and 31 have been amended. No claims are newly cancelled or are new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated 10/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 regarding 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of arguments dated 02/27/2026, however, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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, 4-10, 12-18, 20-26, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimini (US 20190339358 A1), hereinafter Rimini, in view of Kim (US 20230074421 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Rimini, as shown below, discloses an apparatus comprising the following limitations:
a wireless transceiver configured to (See at least Fig. 1, [0032] “A wireless transceiver 120 of the computing device 102”):
be coupled to at least two antennas (See at least [0033] “The wireless transceiver 120 includes circuitry and logic for transmitting and receiving signals via one or more antennas 126-1 to 126-N”);
transmit, using a first antenna of the at least two antennas, a first radar signal during a first shareable time slot, the first radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the first shareable time slot by a first time delay (See at least Fig. 4-2, [0043] “The time offset 220 determines a time at which the radar transmit signal 208 is transmitted. In particular, the time offset 220 causes the transmission of the radar transmit signal 208 to be delayed relative to a reference time.”, [0059] “FIG. 4-2 illustrates another example operating environment 410 in which multiple computing devices 102-1 and 102-2 employ radar interference mitigation using time offsets 220.” Rimini discloses a shareable time slot wherein multiple additional devices in an operating device are performing radar operations in the shared environment.);
receive, using a second antenna of the at least two antennas, a first receive signal during the first shareable time slot (See at least [0040] “In other cases, continuous-wave radar techniques can be used to receive the radar receive signal 210 during at least a portion of time that the radar transmit signal 208 is transmitted using different antennas 126-1 to 126-N.”);
determine the presence or absence of a potential object based on the first receive signal (See at least [0044] “The processor 124 analyzes the radar receive signal 210 to detect the object 206”); and
transmit, using the first antenna, a second radar signal during a second shareable time slot, the second radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the second shareable time slot by a second time delay, the second time delay being different than the first time delay if the presence of the potential object is determined, (See at least Figs. 2-3, [0052] “The time offset 220-2 can also differ from the time offset 220-1 in some cases. As such, a relative time period during which the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-2 at 308 differs from the relative time period that the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-1 at 304.”),
wherein, if the presence of the potential object is determined, the second time delay is sufficiently different than the first time delay to cause a radar signal transmitted by another apparatus to be attenuated by a filter within the wireless transceiver. (See at least Fig. 3, [0060] “The radar transmit signals 208-1 and 208-3 are transmitted according to different time offsets 220-1 and 220-3, respectively. The time offsets 220-1 and 220-3 cause the transmission of the radar transmit signals 208-1 and 208-3 to be delayed by different amounts relative to the reference time 310. […]the difference between the time offsets 220-1 and 220-3 can cause the radar transmit signal 208-3 to not be present at the first computing device 102-1 while the first computing device 102-1 receives the radar receive signal 210-1, thereby mitigating a radar interference situation.”, [0053] “By using both of the pseudorandom offsets 216-1 and 216-2 at 304 and 308, the computing device 102 can filter the other radar transmit signal and prevent the other radar transmit signal from becoming a potential false echo” See also [0069])
Rimini does not explicitly disclose the second time delay being the same as the first time delay if the absence of the potential object is determined. However, Kim, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
the second time delay being the same as the first time delay if the absence of the potential object is determined (See at least Fig. 14, [0130] “The processor 120 may transmit the second frame every first period based on the second offset distinguished from the first offset through the UWB circuit operating in the second mode switched from the first mode.”, [0196] “The processor 120 may switch the operation mode of the UWB circuit from the first mode to the second mode based on the first reflected signal being received with less than a designated intensity.” Kim discloses operation of a second mode corresponding to a first reflection below a threshold (absence of an object), wherein the second mode has a set time delay, differing from a first mode where an object is detected where a different offset is used.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wireless transceiver system disclosed by Rimini with the delay disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently distinguish signals (See at least [0114] “when the UWB circuit operates in the second mode, the processor 120 may transmit the second frame based on a period distinguished from a period in which the first frame is transmitted.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
at least a portion of the first and second shareable time slots represent a time interval in which proximity detection can be performed by the apparatus and at least one other apparatus. (See at least Fig. 4-1, [0055] “At 404 and 406, the second computing device 102-2 and the first computing device 102-1 respectively transmit radar transmit signals 208-3 and 208-1”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the first receive signal comprises a version of the first radar signal that is reflected by an object (See at least Fig. 2, [0040] “detect whether the object 206 exists or is within a detectable range, pulse-Doppler radar techniques can be used to transmit a radar transmit signal 208 and receive a radar receive signal 210”); and
the potential object represents the object (See at least [0044] “The processor 124 analyzes the radar receive signal 210 to detect the object 206 and determine a range to the object 206”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the first receive signal comprises another radar signal transmitted by another apparatus; and the potential object represents a false detection (See at least [0025] “the computing device is able to distinguish between radar signals that are transmitted from other computing devices and reflections from an object that result from self-transmitted radar signals.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the first radar signal, the first receive signal, and the second radar signal comprise frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar signals (See at least [0042] The radar transmit signal 208 can comprise a frequency-modulated pulsed signal or a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) signal. ).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the second time delay represents a time delay selected randomly from a set of multiple time delays (See at least [0050] “In this example, the pseudorandom offset generator 122 selects another pseudorandom offset 216-2.”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini further discloses
receive, using the second antenna, a second receive signal during the second shareable time slot (See at least [0091] “At block 1106, multiple radar receive signals are received.”);
determine an absence of the potential object based on the second receive signal (See at least Fig. 3, [0049] “At 306, the wireless transceiver 120 transmits the next uplink signal. In the depicted example, a high-power uplink signal 202-2 is transmitted if the object 206 is not detected.”); and
transmit, using the first antenna, a third radar signal during a third shareable time slot, the third radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the third shareable time slot by a third time delay, the third time delay being equal to the second time delay based on a determination that the potential object is absent. (See at least Fig. 3, [0049] “Although not shown, the wireless transceiver 120 can alternatively skip the wireless communication mode at 306 and perform another proximity detection operation”, [0045] “The proximity detection modes can occur at fixed time intervals”). Rimini, does not explicitly disclose a third radar signal, time slot, or time delay. The Examiner notes that while the claim element is not explicitly disclosed by Rimini, the step of “transmit, using the first antenna, a second radar signal during a second shareable time slot, the second radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the second shareable time slot by a second time delay,” is disclosed by Rimini with (See at least Figs. 2-3, [0052] “The time offset 220-2 can also differ from the time offset 220-1 in some cases. As such, a relative time period during which the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-2 at 308 differs from the relative time period that the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-1 at 304.”). Therefore, Rimini differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention conveys additional radar signals during an additional time slot by an additional time delay. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Rimini and Kim so that an additional radar signal, time slot, and delay are utilized with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that a mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Rimini as shown in at least Figs. 2-3 and [0052] would be expected to perform in the same way as the claimed invention as there is nothing that prohibits the system from operating using an additional radar signal, time slot, and time delay. Therefore, there would be no unexpected result. Because no new and unexpected result is produced, the mere duplication of an additional radar signal, time slot, and time delay has no patentable significance. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve effectiveness by increasing confidence through redundant checks.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Rimini further discloses
receive, using the second antenna, a third receive signal during the third shareable time slot (See at least [0091] “At block 1106, multiple radar receive signals are received.”);
detect an additional potential object based on the third receive signal (See at least Fig. 3, [0049] “the wireless transceiver 120 can alternatively skip the wireless communication mode at 306 and perform another proximity detection operation using another antenna or a different transmit power level to detect objects 206 at various locations”); and
transmit, using the first antenna, a fourth radar signal during a fourth shareable time slot, the fourth radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the fourth shareable time slot by a fourth time delay, the fourth time delay being different than the first time delay and the second time delay based on the detection of the additional potential object (See at least Fig. 3, [0049] “Although not shown, the wireless transceiver 120 can alternatively skip the wireless communication mode at 306 and perform another proximity detection operation”, [0052] “The time offset 220-2 can also differ from the time offset 220-1 in some cases.”). Rimini, does not explicitly disclose a fourth radar signal, time slot, or time delay. The Examiner notes that while the claim element is not explicitly disclosed by Rimini, the step of “transmit, using the first antenna, a second radar signal during a second shareable time slot, the second radar signal having a start time that is delayed relative to a start time of the second shareable time slot by a second time delay,” is disclosed by Rimini with (See at least Figs. 2-3, [0052] “The time offset 220-2 can also differ from the time offset 220-1 in some cases. As such, a relative time period during which the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-2 at 308 differs from the relative time period that the radar transmit signal 208-2 is transmitted with respect to the reference time 310-1 at 304.”). Therefore, Rimini differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention conveys additional radar signals during an additional time slot by an additional time delay. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Rimini and Kim so that an additional radar signal, time slot, and delay are utilized with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that a mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Rimini as shown in at least Figs. 2-3 and [0052] would be expected to perform in the same way as the claimed invention as there is nothing that prohibits the system from operating using an additional radar signal, time slot, and time delay. Therefore, there would be no unexpected result. Because no new and unexpected result is produced, the mere duplication of an additional radar signal, time slot, and time delay has no patentable significance. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve effectiveness by increasing confidence through redundant checks.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the wireless transceiver is configured to receive, using the second antenna, a second receive signal during the second shareable time slot (See at least [0091] “At block 1106, multiple radar receive signals are received.”);
the first and second receive signals each comprise a radar signal that is transmitted by another apparatus (See at least [0006] “The wireless transceiver is also configured to receive, via the antenna array, at least a portion of another radar transmit signal from another apparatus.”);
the radar signal associated with the first receive signal has a beat frequency that is within a passband of a filter of the wireless transceiver based on the first time delay (See at least [0058] “the frequency offset 218-1 enables the computing device 102-1 to distinguish between signals that are reflected by nearby objects and radar transmit signals that are transmitted from other devices”); and
the radar signal associated with the second receive signal has another beat frequency that is outside of the passband of the filter based on the second time delay. (See at least Fig. 4-3, Item 426, [0066] “Due to the time offsets 220-1 and 220-3, the beat frequency 422-2 resulting from the radar transmit signal 208-3 is sufficiently different from the beat frequency 422-1 in graph 426. This enables the wireless transceiver 120 to filter the beat frequency 422-2 and prevent the radar transmit signal 208-3 from becoming a potential false echo”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the wireless transceiver comprises a local oscillator circuit having a tuning time (See at least Fig. 10, [0085] “FIG. 10 illustrates an example radio-frequency circuit 610 or intermediate-frequency circuit 608 for radar interference mitigation using a time offset 220. In the depicted configuration, the RF circuit 610 or the IF circuit 608 includes the local oscillator signal generator 700”);
the wireless transceiver is configured to generate the first radar signal and the second radar signal using the local oscillator circuit (See at least Fig. 10, 0085] “the ramp generator 702 generates the frequency ramp 710 based on the time offset 220. In other words, generation of the frequency ramp 710 is delayed according to the time offset 220. This in turn delays transmission of the radar transmit signal 208 according to the time offset 220”); and
the first and second time delays are greater or equal to a tuning time associated with the local oscillator circuit. (See at least Fig. 10, 0085] “the ramp generator 702 generates the frequency ramp 710 based on the time offset 220. In other words, generation of the frequency ramp 710 is delayed according to the time offset 220. This in turn delays transmission of the radar transmit signal 208 according to the time offset 220”)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the wireless transceiver is configured to: adjust a transmission parameter based on the detection of the potential object; and transmit, using at least one of the at least two antennas, an uplink signal using the transmission parameter (See at least [0044] “Based on the range, the processor 124 generates at least one transmission parameter that controls one or more transmission attributes for wireless communication. The transmission parameter 312 can specify one or more transmission-related aspects of a next uplink signal 202”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Rimini additionally discloses
the transmission parameter comprises at least one of the following: a power level; a beam steering angle; a frequency; a selected antenna; or a communication protocol (See at least [0044] “The transmission parameter 312 can specify one or more transmission-related aspects of a next uplink signal 202, such as a power level,”).
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Additionally, in regard to claim 15, the Examiner further notes the recited element “wherein, if the presence of the potential object is determined, the second time delay is sufficiently different than the first time delay to cause other received radar signals to be attenuated” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "the second time delay is sufficiently different than the first time delay to cause other received radar signals to be attenuated" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Rimini additionally discloses
the first shareable time slot and the subsequent shareable time slot are associated with wireless communication (See at least Fig. 3, [0044] “The processor 124 analyzes the radar receive signal 210 to detect the object 206 and determine a range to the object 206. Based on the range, the processor 124 generates at least one transmission parameter that controls one or more transmission attributes for wireless communication.”).
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 22, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 23, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8 shown above.
Regarding claim 24, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 13. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 13, shown above.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 22. Rimini additionally discloses
the at least one shareable time slot and the subsequent shareable time slot comprise consecutive shareable time slots (See at least Fig. 3, [0049] “the wireless transceiver 120 can alternatively skip the wireless communication mode at 306 and perform another proximity detection”).
Regarding claim 26, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 26 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 28, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rimini additionally discloses
the difference between the second time delay and the first time delay is based on a bandwidth of the filter (See at least [0053] “By using both of the pseudorandom offsets 216-1 and 216-2 at 304 and 308, the computing device 102 can filter the other radar transmit signal and prevent the other radar transmit signal from becoming a potential false echo (e.g., being incorrectly interpreted as a reflection from the object 206), as further described with respect to FIGS. 4-1 to 5.”).
Claims 3, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimini, in view of Kim, in further view of Rimini (US 20210195435 A1), hereinafter Rimini (‘435).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Rimini and Kim does not explicitly disclose the first and second shareable time slots comprise uplink random-access-channel time slots. However, Rimini (‘435), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first and second shareable time slots comprise uplink random-access-channel time slots (See at least [0059] “As such, the series of slots 702 may include a series of uplink and downlink slots, as well as a periodic random access channel (RACH) slot 704. The RACH is a shared channel that may be used by the BS 110a and UE”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wireless transceiver apparatus disclosed by Rimini with the delay disclosed by Kim with the random-access-channel system disclosed by Rimini (‘435). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance object detection and ensure safety and compliance (See at least [0046] “methods for detecting and avoiding signaling from other electronic devices would enhance the electronics device's ability to actively detect objects and adjust transmission of mmW signals to meet safety guidelines promulgated by the government or the wireless industry.”).
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 30, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 30 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimini, in view of Kim, in further view of Ray (US 20200309933 A1), hereinafter Ray.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rimini and Kim, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. The combination of Rimini and Kim does not explicitly disclose the filter comprises a low-pass filter. However, Ray, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the filter comprises a low-pass filter (See at least [0089] “The low-pass filter 122a performs low-pass filtering to obtain beat frequency signals”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wireless transceiver apparatus disclosed by Rimini with the delay disclosed by Kim with the low pass filter disclosed by Ray. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance radar sensitivity (See at least [0020] “[0020] The distributive collaborative radar system disclosed herein solves the important problem of simultaneous FMCW radar operation across multiple dispersed platforms with enhanced sensitivity while using the same RF spectrum.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 J. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights