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 .
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 10, 16 have entered.
Claims 2, 11, 15, 17 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
Secondary reference Jeon teaches designations regarding a user device and base device. Primary reference Ouderkirk taught the multi-static time slot features with respect to claims 1 and 8. Official notice was not traversed and is now considered Applicant admitted prior art.
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, 3 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouderkirk (US 20200142046 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20220256519 A1).
All citations are of the primary reference Ouderkirk unless otherwise specified.
As to claims 1, 10 and 16, Ouderkirk discloses radar system comprising:
at least one receiver; at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing machine instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 2A – 2D), cause the at least one processor to:
receive, within a communication frame, radar metadata including information indicative of one or more sensing time slots within the communication frame used for radar sensing by a second radar system and a frequency band used for the radar sensing (Paras. 9 and 13 – 14);
during the one or more sensing time slots, cause the at least one receiver to obtain a set of radar reflections from off of at least one object in an environment from a radar signal of the second radar system reflected by off of the at least one object (Para. 3); and
determine, based on the set of received radar reflections and the radar metadata, at least one of a distance between the at least one object and the radar system, a velocity of the at least one object, and an angle of arrival for the at least one object (Para. 38).
Secondary reference Jeon teaches designations regarding a user device and base device. For example, Jeon teaches “In one embodiment, the UE can be configured or indicated with various time/frequency resource allocation methods for communication and sensing. UE signaling to request 5G/6G base station for activation and release of resources for sensing (Paras. 213 – 214).” Jeon further teaches “base stations in a networked computing system can be assigned as synchronization source BS or a slave BS based on interference relationships with other neighboring BSs (Para. 389).” Jeon further teaches “In a second embodiment, a method performed by a base station includes: determining a time pattern for a set of subcarriers and symbols, the time pattern including one or more uplink components for uplink communications, one or more downlink components for downlink communications, one or more radar sensing components, and one or more flexible components that may be used for uplink or downlink communications or radar sensing (Para. 8).”
In view of the teachings of Jeon, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to modify one of the radar to be the base station to serve as source of organizing the other radars as taught by Jeon in order to prevent interference thus improving accuracy.
As to claims 3, 12 and 18, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 1, further comprising at least one transmitter, wherein the set of radar reflections are a first set of radar reflections, wherein the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium further comprises machine instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: generate, based on the radar metadata, at least one radar signal; cause the at least one transmitter to transmit the at least one radar signal; cause the at least one receiver to obtain a second set of radar reflections off of the at least one object in the environment; and determine, based on the second set of received radar reflections, the at least one of the distance between the at least one object and the first radar system, the velocity of the at least one object, and the angle of arrival for the at least one object (Fig. 2C shows tracking 216, Fig. 2D shows two passes, Fig. 3A step 320).
As to claims 4, 13 and 19, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 3, wherein: the one or more sensing time slots include a first time slot and a second time slot; the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises machine instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine a signal strength of radar reflections received during the first time slot (Para. 11); for the second time slot and in response to the signal strength not satisfying a threshold signal strength, the at least one radar signal has at least one same characteristic indicated by the radar metadata (Para. 13 distance corresponds to strength as evidenced by signal-to-noise SNR equation. If necessary, Examiner takes official notice under 103, the motivation being improved SNR.); and for the second time slot and in response to the signal strength satisfying the threshold signal strength, the at least one radar signal has at least one characteristic different from a characteristic indicated by the radar metadata (Figs. 4a – 4c Paras. 9 – 14 and 37).
As to claims 5, 14 and 20, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 4, wherein the at least one characteristic different from the characteristic indicated by the radar metadata is chosen to reduce interference between the at least one radar signal and the radar signals transmitted by the second radar system (Figs. 4a – 4c Paras. 9 – 14 and 37).
As to claim 6, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 1, wherein the machine instructions comprise instructions that cause the at least one processor to: determine from the radar metadata the frequency band and a signal strength of the radar signals transmitted by the second radar system; select one or more of a different frequency band and a different signal strength than the radar signals transmitted by the second radar system to avoid interference (Figs. 4a – 4c Paras. 9 and 13); perform a ranging operation by generating radar signals and receiving reflections to determine distance, velocity and angle of arrival information associated with objects in the environment and the radar system (as cited before); and send the determined distance, velocity and angle of arrival information to one or more other devices (Fig. 2D).
As to claim 7, Ouderkirk disclose the radar system of claim 1, wherein the communication frame comprises the one or more sensing time slots, a number of receiving communication time slots, and a number of transmitting communication time slots, and wherein the one or more sensing time slots are interspersed among the number of receiving communication time slots and the number of transmitting communication time slots (Figs. 4A – 4C and Paras. 9 – 14, Para. 37).
As to claim 8, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 1, wherein the communication frame comprises the one or more sensing time slots, a number of receiving communication time slots, and a number of transmitting communication time slots, wherein the one or more sensing time slots are interspersed among the number of receiving communication time slots and the number of transmitting communication time slots such that fast moving objects in the environment can be detected (Ouderkirk Figs. 4A – 4C and Paras. 9 – 14 & Para. 5; Jeon Para. 441 – 445 and Para. 365).
In view of Jeon, it would have been obvious to ordinarily skill before filing to consider maximum velocities thereby reducing ambiguities and improving accuracy.).
As to claim 9, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 1, wherein the communication frame comprises a radar frame having the one or more sensing time slots, a number of receiving radar time slots, and a number of transmitting radar time slots, and wherein the one or more sensing time slots are interspersed among the number of receiving radar time slots and the number of transmitting radar time slots (Figs. 4A – 4C and Paras. 9 – 14, Para. 37).
As to claim 21, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising communicating data from the radar system to one or more other devices, the communicated data including at least one of the distance between the at least one object and the radar system, the velocity of the at least one object, and the angle of arrival for the at least one object (as cited in claim 1).
As to claim 22, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the radar system of claim 1, wherein the machine instructions comprise instructions that cause the at least one processor to: during the one or more sensing time slots, cause the at least one receiver to obtain a second set of radar reflections from off of at least one object in an environment from a second radar signal of a third radar system reflected by off of the at least one object; and wherein the at least one of the distance, the velocity, and the angle of arrival are determined based on the set of received radar reflections, the radar metadata, and the second set of radar reflections (Fig. 2C shows tracking 216, Fig. 2D shows two passes, Fig. 3A step 320).
As to claim 23, Ouderkirk in view of Jeon teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: during the one or more sensing time slots, causing the at least one receiver to obtain a second set of radar reflections from off of at least one object in an environment from a second radar signal of a third radar system reflected by off of the at least one object; and wherein determining at least one of the distance, the velocity, and the angle of arrival is based on the set of received radar reflections, the radar metadata, and the second set of radar reflections (Para. 13 “two or more sensors …”)
Claim 4, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ouderkirk in view of Official Notice (now Applicant admitted prior art).
Examiner takes official notice (now Applicant admitted prior art) discussed supra wherein distance corresponds to strength as evidenced by SNR wherein the motivation is improved detection accuracy. SNR is well-known and applied throughout many different engineering fields thus official notice is appropriate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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, William Kelleher can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights