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 .
Response
Total of six claim sets exist so far. Total of three office actions exist. The correct claim set to be examined is believed to be claims set dated 3/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouderkirk (US 20200142046 A1).
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).
As to claims 3, 12 and 18, Ouderkirk discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 (Figs. 4A – 4C and Paras. 9 – 14 & Para. 5).
As to claim 9, Ouderkirk 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ouderkirk in view of Jeon.
If Applicants disagrees with Examiner’s 102 rejection of claim 8, then Applicant should consider Non-Final dated 12/19/2025 Para. 30 citing 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.
Claim 4, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ouderkirk in view of Official Notice.
Examiner takes official notice 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
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