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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/28/2023. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024, 09/18/2024 and 03/05/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “means for receiving a communication indicating a first radar signal pattern parameter set associated with another apparatus “. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed receiving a communication is device200 of Figure 2 (Paragraph [0027]: “Fig. 2 is a diagram illustrating example components of a device200, in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. Device200 may correspond to vehicle110, OBU112, and/or RSU120. In some aspects, vehicle110, OBU112, and/or RSU120 may include one or more devices200 and/or one or more components of device200. As shown in Fig. 2, device200 may include a bus205, a processor210, a memory215, a storage component220, an input component225, an output component230, a communication interface235, and/or one or more sensors240 (referred to individually as a "sensor240" and collectively as "sensors240") “).
Claim 30 further recites the limitations “means for selecting” and “means for transmitting a radar signal using the second radar signal pattern parameter set”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed selecting and transmitting is device200 of Figure 2 (Paragraph [00036]: “In some aspects, device200 includes means for performing one or more processes described herein and/or means for performing one or more operations of the processes described herein. For example, device200 may include means for receiving a communication indicating a first radar signal pattern parameter set associated with another device; means for selecting, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, a second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set; and/or means for transmitting a radar signal using the second radar signal pattern parameter set. In some aspects, such means may include one or more components of device200 described in connection with Fig. 2, such as bus205, processor210, memory215, storage component220, input component225, output component230, communication interface235, and/or sensor240.”)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, 27, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gulati (US20190293748A1).
Regarding claim 1 Gulati teaches: A method of wireless communication performed by a device (Figure 1, element 120), comprising: receiving a communication indicating a first radar signal pattern parameter set associated with another device (Para [0082]: “0082] While FIG. 4 illustrates communication between a base station 110 and a UE 120, in some systems UEs 120 may detect each other and transmit information directly to one another (e.g., over a side-communication channel). In these cases, the UEs 120 may detect other UEs 120 and communicate with the other UEs 120 directly (e.g., without the communication passing through or being relayed by a base station 110). In some cases, a UE 120 may transmit a radar waveform (e.g., using an antenna 452) to detect nearby UEs 120.”); selecting, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, a second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set (Para. [0082]: “While FIG. 4 illustrates communication between a base station 110 and a UE 120, in some systems UEs 120 may detect each other and transmit information directly to one another (e.g., over a side-communication channel). In these cases, the UEs 120 may detect other UEs 120 and communicate with the other UEs 120 directly (e.g., without the communication passing through or being relayed by a base station 110). In some cases, a UE 120 may transmit a radar waveform (e.g., using an antenna 452) to detect nearby UEs 120. To improve multi-radar coexistence between the UEs 120, each UE 120 may transmit indications of the waveform parameters used by that UE 120, such that the nearby UEs 120 can identify the other radar waveforms and reduce the interference caused by these waves. For example, a UE 120 may vary its waveform and/or waveform parameters for at least a subset of chirps based on the selected parameters for nearby UEs 120 to achieve interference shaping, suppression, or both. This may improve the reliability of the target detection procedure performed by the UE 120.”).; and transmitting a radar signal using the second radar signal pattern parameter set (Para [0082]: “For example, a UE 120 may vary its waveform and/or waveform parameters for at least a subset of chirps based on the selected parameters for nearby UEs 120 to achieve interference shaping, suppression, or both. This may improve the reliability of the target detection procedure performed by the UE 120.”).
Claims 17, 29 and 30 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 17, 29 and 30 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein the communication is a communication outside of a frequency band associated transmitting the radar signal (Para [0110]: “A side channel (e.g., a V2X communication channel or cellular communications) may be used to communicate the vehicle's location and the parameter pattern (or codeword) being used. Centralized (e.g., base station-based) and/or decentralized (e.g., vehicle-to-vehicle-based) methods can be used to gather information about the codewords (e.g., the patterns of parameters used over chirps) being used in a car's proximity. In a centralized operation, a UE 120 may receive information about the codewords being used near the UE 120 (e.g., with a certain range threshold) from a base station 110. In a decentralized operation, the UE 120 may receive information about codewords being used near the UE 120 from the other UEs 120 near the UE 120 (e.g., over side-communication channels). For example, each UE 120 may broadcast an indication of its own selected waveform parameters for reception by other UEs monitoring for side channel transmissions. Interference cancellation and selection of a vehicle's own codeword can be done based on this side information.”).
Claim 18 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 2, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein the communication is a cellular vehicle to everything (C-V2X) PC5 communication signal (Para [0110]: “A side channel (e.g., a V2X communication channel or cellular communications) may be used to communicate the vehicle's location and the parameter pattern (or codeword) being used. Centralized (e.g., base station-based) and/or decentralized (e.g., vehicle-to-vehicle-based) methods can be used to gather information about the codewords (e.g., the patterns of parameters used over chirps) being used in a car's proximity. In a centralized operation, a UE 120 may receive information about the codewords being used near the UE 120 (e.g., with a certain range threshold) from a base station 110. In a decentralized operation, the UE 120 may receive information about codewords being used near the UE 120 from the other UEs 120 near the UE 120 (e.g., over side-communication channels). For example, each UE 120 may broadcast an indication of its own selected waveform parameters for reception by other UEs monitoring for side channel transmissions. Interference cancellation and selection of a vehicle's own codeword can be done based on this side information.”).
Claim 19 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 3, therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein the communication includes a basic safety message that includes an indication of the first radar signal parameter set or a cooperative awareness message that includes the indication of the first radar signal parameter set (Para [0113]: “In one case, the UE 120 may broadcast a signal (e.g., a beacon, a coded discovery message, etc.) on a side-channel to announce its presence. This message may contain only a subset of the information (e.g., the message may or may not indicate the selected waveform parameters), but serves as an indication that a vehicle is present and actively transmitting radar waveforms. The nearby vehicles receiving this message can utilize this information to estimate the waveform parameters being used by those nearby vehicles.”).
Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 4, therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein the communication includes a roadside safety message that includes an indication of the first radar signal pattern parameter set (Para [0112]:” A UE 120 (e.g., a vehicle) may use the side information (e.g., the broadcast information) received from other vehicles indicating the parameter pattern (or codeword) being used by the other vehicles, the locations of the other vehicles, the location of the UE 120, or some combination of this information to determine the set of codewords being used in the proximity of the UE 120 (e.g., according to some proximity threshold or definition). In one case, the information of the set of codewords being used in the proximity of the UE 120 is conveyed to the UE 120 (e.g., an automobile) by direct communication with a network entity (e.g., a base station 110, or roadside unit (RSU), or another UE 120).”).
Regarding claim 8 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein the first radar signal pattern parameter set is one of a plurality of radar signal pattern parameter sets associated with corresponding indexes (Para [0109]: “o indicate a specific codeword selected from a codebook including multiple possible codewords, a UE 120 may broadcast an indication of the selected codeword for reception by nearby UEs 120. For example, after selecting a pattern of waveform parameters, the UE 120 may use a side-communication channel to broadcast the pattern being used for a radar waveform. For a pattern of parameters used over a set of chirps (e.g., a codeword), the pattern of parameters may be chosen from a set of patterns (e.g., a codebook of patterns). In some cases, the parameters may be selected from a codebook containing all supported patterns of parameters. In these cases, the selected pattern can be identified by an index specified in the codebook (e.g., instead of being identified based on all of the parameters in the pattern).”), and the communication includes an indication of the corresponding index associated with the first radar signal pattern parameter set (Para [0109]: “Transmitting an index indicating the codeword, as opposed to values for all of the parameters specified by the codeword, may significantly reduce the payload size and overhead of the side-communication channel transmission.”).
Claim 22 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 8, therefore claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: randomly selecting a radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set (Para [0106]: “From the equations described herein, the following set of parameters can be used to vary an FMCW waveform for a set of chirps (e.g., every chirp) for interference randomization: {ū.sub.i,q.sub.i,c.sub.i:=(u.sub.i.sup.(m),q.sub.i.sup.(m)),m=1, . . . ,N.sub.C}, (3)where i is the transmitter index, m is the chirp index, N.sub.C is the total number of chirps over which randomization is performed, (ū.sub.i, q.sub.i) control the phase-modulation applied across N.sub.C chirps, and (u.sub.i.sup.(m), q.sub.i.sup.(m)) determine the slope and frequency offset of the FMCW waveform in the m.sup.th chirp. For example, a UE 120 may select a codeword from a codebook, where the codeword indicates the parameters to use for the waveform. Multiple users may use a same codebook for codebook-based selection of the FMCW parameters. In some cases, the UE 120 may select (ū.sub. i, q.sub.i,) (e.g., randomly, pseudo-randomly, based on some procedure, etc.) with a uniform distribution within a range. The UE 120 may additionally or alternatively select c.sub. i:=(u.sub.i(m), q.sub.i.sup.(m)), m=1, . . . , N.sub.C} such that a “distance” among codewords (e.g., codewords selected by nearby UEs 120) is maximized. The “distance” measurement may be set to a maximum distance if the slopes for chirps are different, while the “distance” measurement may be set proportional to (q.sub.i−q.sub.k) if the slopes are the same (e.g., where the distance may top out at the maximum distance if q.sub.i−q.sub.k>max delay).“).
Claim 23 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 9, therefore claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: further comprising: broadcasting a communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set (Para. [0108]: “If the pattern of parameters (e.g., codeword) that another vehicle with transmitter j is using is known by the vehicle with transmitter i, then the vehicle with transmitter i can select a codeword which may yield the least (or relatively small) mutual interference to the pattern used by the vehicle with transmitter j. In one aspect, the vehicle with transmitter i may determine the set of patterns being used by other vehicles in proximity. The vehicle with transmitter i may select a codeword for its own transmission that leads to the least mutual interference with the determined set of patterns for the other vehicles. In some cases, a side-communication channel can be used to communicate the pattern being used by the vehicle, and the nearby vehicles can listen to (e.g., monitor for) such broadcast messages to determine the set of codewords being used in a certain proximity (e.g., within a certain distance range, within a range of detection, etc.). Determining the codewords used by nearby UEs 120 (e.g., vehicles) based on side-communication channel transmissions may support a low computational complexity.”).
Claim 27 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 13, therefore claim 27 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Gulati further teaches: wherein broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set in at least one of a vehicle to everything (V2X) communication outside of a frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal or a communication within the frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal (Para [0110]: “A side channel (e.g., a V2X communication channel or cellular communications) may be used to communicate the vehicle's location and the parameter pattern (or codeword) being used. Centralized (e.g., base station-based) and/or decentralized (e.g., vehicle-to-vehicle-based) methods can be used to gather information about the codewords (e.g., the patterns of parameters used over chirps) being used in a car's proximity. “).
Regarding claim 16 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati further teaches: wherein receiving a communication indicating a first radar signal pattern parameter set associated with another device comprises receiving a plurality of communications indicating radar signal pattern parameter sets associated with multiple other devices (Para [0082]: “0082] While FIG. 4 illustrates communication between a base station 110 and a UE 120, in some systems UEs 120 may detect each other and transmit information directly to one another (e.g., over a side-communication channel). In these cases, the UEs 120 may detect other UEs 120 and communicate with the other UEs 120 directly (e.g., without the communication passing through or being relayed by a base station 110). In some cases, a UE 120 may transmit a radar waveform (e.g., using an antenna 452) to detect nearby UEs 120.”), and wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set to reduce interference with the radar signal from radar signals transmitted by the multiple other devices based at least in part on the radar signal parameter sets associated with the multiple other devices (Para. [0082]: “While FIG. 4 illustrates communication between a base station 110 and a UE 120, in some systems UEs 120 may detect each other and transmit information directly to one another (e.g., over a side-communication channel). In these cases, the UEs 120 may detect other UEs 120 and communicate with the other UEs 120 directly (e.g., without the communication passing through or being relayed by a base station 110). In some cases, a UE 120 may transmit a radar waveform (e.g., using an antenna 452) to detect nearby UEs 120. To improve multi-radar coexistence between the UEs 120, each UE 120 may transmit indications of the waveform parameters used by that UE 120, such that the nearby UEs 120 can identify the other radar waveforms and reduce the interference caused by these waves. For example, a UE 120 may vary its waveform and/or waveform parameters for at least a subset of chirps based on the selected parameters for nearby UEs 120 to achieve interference shaping, suppression, or both. This may improve the reliability of the target detection procedure performed by the UE 120.”).
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.
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati (US20190293748A1) in view of Villeval (US20180113191A1).
Regarding claim 6 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati does not teach “wherein the communication is a communication within a frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal”.
However, Villeval in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the communication is a communication within a frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal (Para [0018]: “According to one exemplary embodiment, a clean band of frequencies are selected for transmissions 115 to avoid bandwidths that are estimated as being used by the other radars.”).
Claim 21 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 6, therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale.
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Villeval to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication is a communication within a frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal. Gulati and Villeval are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for interference mitigation in radar systems. However, Gulati fails to disclose a feature of using the same frequency band for radar sensing and message communication. This feature is disclosed by Villeval. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Villeval to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication is a communication within a frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system because of spectrum sharing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati (US20190293748A1) in view of Levin (US20020003488A1).
Regarding claim 7 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Gulati does not teach “wherein the communication is received in a dedicated portion of the frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal”.
However, Levin in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the communication is received in a dedicated portion of the frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal (Para. [0041]: “For vehicle applications, the system will operate in two modes: The communication mode and the radar mode. While the vehicle is moving, the radar mode is operating, and the system provides an additional communication channel with bandwidth of up to 1 Mbps. This channel will be used for communication between vehicles for two applications: first--communication to improve the sensors' view (e.g., the track file--list of "targets" and targets parameters--to be transferred between vehicles). Secondly, the communication link is used to share information relevant to synchronized operation of adjacent vehicles, like platoon operation (a number of vehicles moving in a tight constellation) and inter system interference reduction.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Levin to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication is received in a dedicated portion of the frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal. Gulati and Levin are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for interference mitigation in radar systems. However, Gulati fails to disclose the use of dedicated frequency bandwidth for communication. This feature is disclosed by Levin. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Levin to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication is received in a dedicated portion of the frequency band associated with transmitting the radar signal as such a feature would minimize the probability of radar signals interfering with communication signals thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Claims 10-12, 14, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati (US20190293748A1) in view of Honda (JP2009133875A).
Regarding claim 10 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati does not teach “wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set “.
However, Honda in the analogous arts teaches: wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “In the control unit 10, when the observation signal detection unit 28 detects interference, the instantaneous frequency of the observation signal of the own device at the time when the interference occurs is specified by specifying the interference occurrence time. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, when the triangular wave W1 representing the frequency-modulated observation signal of the own device interferes with the multi-device priority signal RS30 at times t31, t32, and t33, the interference at each time point The frequency f30 of the wave is specified. Then, the frequency modulation is stopped (straight line M32), and the identified frequency f30 is set as the local frequency of the mixer 24. By doing so, the mixer 24 generates a baseband signal from the received signal of the interference wave and the transmission signal of the set local frequency, and the code detection unit 26 uses the priority code of the other device ASK-modulated from the baseband signal.”); determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “Here, the operation of shifting the frequency band will be described with reference to FIG. 2A and 2B are waveform diagrams of a triangular wave representing a frequency-modulated observation signal, with the elapsed time on the horizontal axis and the frequency on the vertical axis. Waveform W1 represents the observation signal of the own device, and waveform W2 represents the observation signal of the other device. In FIG. 2A, the two devices use the overlapping frequency band B1, for example, 76.4 GHz to 76.6 GHz, and the same instantaneous frequency is observed at times t21, t22, t23,. Indicates that a signal is being transmitted. Then, at such time, interference with the observation signal of another device occurs, and an error occurs in the beat signal generated by the mixer 24.”); and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “Here, the operation of shifting the frequency band will be described with reference to FIG. 2A and 2B are waveform diagrams of a triangular wave representing a frequency-modulated observation signal, with the elapsed time on the horizontal axis and the frequency on the vertical axis. Waveform W1 represents the observation signal of the own device, and waveform W2 represents the observation signal of the other device. In FIG. 2A, the two devices use the overlapping frequency band B1, for example, 76.4 GHz to 76.6 GHz, and the same instantaneous frequency is observed at times t21, t22, t23,. Indicates that a signal is being transmitted. Then, at such time, interference with the observation signal of another device occurs, and an error occurs in the beat signal generated by the mixer 24. Therefore, it is possible to avoid interference by shifting the frequency band as shown in FIG. For example, as a result of comparing the priorities, if the own device has a lower priority, the device shifts to the lower frequency band B2. The shifting width can be set in advance, such as one half of the modulation width of the device itself or 50 MHz. If the frequency band still overlaps after one operation and the interference recurs, repeat the operation to shift the maximum frequency of the local device until it is below the minimum frequency of the other device, so that the frequency used by both devices Bandwidth duplication can be eliminated and recurrence of interference can be avoided.
Claim 24 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 10, therefore claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale.
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Honda to incorporate the feature of: wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set. Gulati and Honda are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for interference mitigation in radar systems. However, Gulati fails to disclose a feature of assigning priority to radar systems as part of interference mitigation. This feature is disclosed by Honda. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Honda to incorporate the feature of: wherein selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set ; and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 11 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Gulati does not teach “wherein the communication includes a priority associated with the other device, and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set comprises : selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set and based at least in part on comparing a priority associated with the device and the priority associated with the other device “.
However, Honda in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the communication includes a priority associated with the other device (Description: “The on-vehicle radar device having the above configuration performs an operation of transmitting / receiving an observation signal frequency-modulated with a constant modulation width according to a predetermined rule, and transmits / receives priority information at an appropriate frequency set within the band of the observation signal.”), and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set comprises (Description: “Here, the operation of shifting the frequency band will be described with reference to FIG. 2A and 2B are waveform diagrams of a triangular wave representing a frequency-modulated observation signal, with the elapsed time on the horizontal axis and the frequency on the vertical axis. Waveform W1 represents the observation signal of the own device, and waveform W2 represents the observation signal of the other device. In FIG. 2A, the two devices use the overlapping frequency band B1, for example, 76.4 GHz to 76.6 GHz, and the same instantaneous frequency is observed at times t21, t22, t23,. Indicates that a signal is being transmitted. Then, at such time, interference with the observation signal of another device occurs, and an error occurs in the beat signal generated by the mixer 24. Therefore, it is possible to avoid interference by shifting the frequency band as shown in FIG. For example, as a result of comparing the priorities, if the own device has a lower priority, the device shifts to the lower frequency band B2. The shifting width can be set in advance, such as one half of the modulation width of the device itself or 50 MHz. If the frequency band still overlaps after one operation and the interference recurs, repeat the operation to shift the maximum frequency of the local device until it is below the minimum frequency of the other device, so that the frequency used by both devices Bandwidth duplication can be eliminated and recurrence of interference can be avoided”) : selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set and based at least in part on comparing a priority associated with the device and the priority associated with the other device (Description: “Here, the operation of shifting the frequency band will be described with reference to FIG. 2A and 2B are waveform diagrams of a triangular wave representing a frequency-modulated observation signal, with the elapsed time on the horizontal axis and the frequency on the vertical axis. Waveform W1 represents the observation signal of the own device, and waveform W2 represents the observation signal of the other device. In FIG. 2A, the two devices use the overlapping frequency band B1, for example, 76.4 GHz to 76.6 GHz, and the same instantaneous frequency is observed at times t21, t22, t23,. Indicates that a signal is being transmitted. Then, at such time, interference with the observation signal of another device occurs, and an error occurs in the beat signal generated by the mixer 24. Therefore, it is possible to avoid interference by shifting the frequency band as shown in FIG. For example, as a result of comparing the priorities, if the own device has a lower priority, the device shifts to the lower frequency band B2. The shifting width can be set in advance, such as one half of the modulation width of the device itself or 50 MHz. If the frequency band still overlaps after one operation and the interference recurs, repeat the operation to shift the maximum frequency of the local device until it is below the minimum frequency of the other device, so that the frequency used by both devices Bandwidth duplication can be eliminated and recurrence of interference can be avoided.
“).
Claim 25 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 11, therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale.
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Honda to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication includes a priority associated with the other device, and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set comprises : selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set and based at least in part on comparing a priority associated with the device and the priority associated with the other device. Gulati and Honda are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for interference mitigation in radar systems. However, Gulati fails to disclose a feature of assigning priority to radar systems as part of interference mitigation. This feature is disclosed by Honda. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gulati with Honda to incorporate the feature of: wherein the communication includes a priority associated with the other device, and selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set comprises : selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set and based at least in part on comparing a priority associated with the device and the priority associated with the other device as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 12 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Gulati does not teach “selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set; determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is not the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set; and maintaining the initial radar signal pattern parameter set as the second radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is not the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set “.
However, Honda in the analogous arts teaches: selecting the second radar signal pattern parameter set that is different from the first radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: selecting an initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “In the control unit 10, when the observation signal detection unit 28 detects interference, the instantaneous frequency of the observation signal of the own device at the time when the interference occurs is specified by specifying the interference occurrence time. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, when the triangular wave W1 representing the frequency-modulated observation signal of the own device interferes with the multi-device priority signal RS30 at times t31, t32, and t33, the interference at each time point The frequency f30 of the wave is specified. Then, the frequency modulation is stopped (straight line M32), and the identified frequency f30 is set as the local frequency of the mixer 24. By doing so, the mixer 24 generates a baseband signal from the received signal of the interference wave and the transmission signal of the set local frequency, and the code detection unit 26 uses the priority code of the other device ASK-modulated from the baseband signal.”) ; determining, based at least in part receiving the communication indicating the first radar signal pattern parameter set, that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is not the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “If no interference is detected in step S14 (NO in S14), the previous transmission frequency adjustment voltage is compared with the next transmission frequency adjustment voltage of the priority order signal transmitted from the device itself. If it is higher (YES in S40), the next transmission frequency adjustment voltage is set to the minimum value (S42), and the priority order signal is transmitted at the minimum frequency of the observation signal of the own apparatus (S46). Alternatively, if the previous transmission frequency adjustment voltage is lower (NO in S40), the next transmission frequency adjustment voltage is set to the maximum value (S44), and the priority order signal is transmitted at the maximum frequency of the own observation signal (S46). ).”); and maintaining the initial radar signal pattern parameter set as the second radar signal pattern parameter set based at least in part on determining that the first radar signal pattern parameter set is not the same as the initial radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “If no interference is detected in step S14 (NO in S14), the previous transmission frequency adjustment voltage is compared with the next transmission frequency adjustment voltage of the priority order signal transmitted from the device itself. If it is higher (YES in S40), the next transmission frequency adjustment voltage is set to the minimum value (S42), and the priority order signal is transmitted at the minimum frequency of the observation signal of the own apparatus (S46).”).
The reason to modify Gulati with Honda is the same as one given in claim 11 above.
Claim 26 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 12, therefore claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14 Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Gulati does not teach “wherein broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: periodically broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set “.
However, Honda in the analogous arts teaches: wherein broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set comprises: periodically broadcasting the communication indicating the second radar signal pattern parameter set (Description: “Further, FIG. 3C shows that the priority signal RS31 at the maximum frequency f31 of the modulation width, the priority signal RS32 at the center frequency f32, or the minimum frequency f33 within the transmission period (SP1) of the observation signal of the device itself. The instantaneous frequency when the other device transmits the priority order signal RS33 is shown. FIG. 3C shows a case where interference occurs at the time t34, t35,..., T38, t39 in the observation signal of the own apparatus and the priority signals R31, R32. In this case, the reading period RP is used by using one of the detected interference wave frequencies f31 and f32, and the above-described reading operation is performed. By doing so, it is possible to reliably acquire the priority order of the other device and to acquire the maximum frequency of the observation signal of the other device.”).
The reason to modify Gulati with Honda is the same as one given in claim 11 above.
Claim 28 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 14, therefore claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 sub