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
Claims 11-20 pending.
Response to Remarks
Amendments and remarks filed September 9, 2025 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are not fully overcome. See rejections below for detailed analysis.
Argument 1 (Remarks pg. 7): Applicant submits that Gulati does not teach “checking the surroundings signals for a presence of a third-party radar signal from a third-party radar sensor of another road user” as required by claim 11 because the sidelink signaling 220 taught by Gulati is separate from the radar signal 205-b and is therefore not a radar signal.
Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that the radar signal 205-b (not the sidelink signal 220) corresponds to the third-party radar signal from a third-party radar sensor of another road user in the surroundings signals. Sidelink signaling 220 merely provides UE 115-a with transmission parameters of radar signal 205-b prior to UE 115-a checking the surroundings signals for the third party radar signal 205-b.
Argument 2 (Remarks pg. 7-8): Applicant submits that Gulati does not teach “an object that has not been detected by the radar sensor based on the radar signal” as required by claim 11 because UE 115-a detects UE 115-b based on the radar signal 205-b.
Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any argument as to whether or not the UE 115-b is “an object that has not been detected by the radar sensor based on the radar signal” is not persuasive because the claim does not recite or require the presence or absence of “an object that has not been detected by the radar sensor based on the radar signal.” It merely requires an assumption that such an object is present. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Gulati teaches the required limitation at [0079-89] - "the signal 205-b may cause relatively strong interference to the signal 205-a from the UE 115-a (e.g., the signal 205-b may obscure the reception of a reflected signal 210), which may degrade ranging accuracy and object detection (e.g., detection of target 215)… the UE 115-a may receive radar signal 205-b and may also receive reflected radar signal 210 that is reflected by target 215... the UE 115-a may determine portions of a frequency spectrum that are caused by interference… Based on identifying that one or more peaks of a frequency spectrum are caused by interference the UE 115-a may null the portions of the frequency spectrum caused by interference such that true targets may be more readily identified” Compensating for portions of a frequency spectrum that are caused by interference from UE 115-b corresponds to an assumption that such an object has not been detected, i.e., UE 115-a performs interference compensation in order to better identify an object that is assumed to have not been detected. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “assuming that an object that has not been detected…” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., when this assumption is taking place with respect to the other steps of the claim, particularly the step of “detecting objects in the surroundings based on the received radar signal.” Examiner’s best understanding, used for purposes of examination, is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification includes the case where “detecting objects…” occurs after “assuming an object…” and therefore no objects have been detected while assumption step is occurring. All recitations of “the object that has not been detected…” will be interpreted as any object that had not been detected by the radar sensor during the assumption step of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 recites similar limitations and is indefinite for similar reasons. Claims 12-19 rejected due to nature of dependency upon claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, the term “an object that was detected based on the radar signal” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this is a same object detected in the detecting step of claim 11 or any object that has been detected by the radar signal at any time.
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)(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) 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220163660 A1 to Gulati et al; hereinafter “Gulati (‘660)”
Regarding claim 11,
Gulati (‘660) teaches:
A method for detecting surroundings of a vehicle, the method comprising:
emitting a radar signal by a radar sensor of the vehicle; (Fig. 2, 4; [0079] – “UE 115-a may transmit the signal 205-a… may be an example of a FMCW radar signal… UE 115-a may be an example of a vehicle”)
receiving the radar signal reflected in the surroundings by the radar sensor; ([0082] – “UE 115-a may… receive reflected radar signal 210 that is reflected by target 215”)
detecting objects in the surroundings based on the received radar signal; ([0077, 94] – “The UE 115-c may receive the interfering FMCW along with the reflected FMCW and, at 430, may generate a frequency spectrum based on the received waveform. In some cases, the UE may generate a range spectrum, a doppler spectrum, a DoA spectrum, or any combination thereof. The spectrum may include a false peak due to a frequency waveform from the UE 115-d and may include a real peak due to the waveform reflected from the target. The UE 115-c may not be able to identify the real target if the interference comprising the false target is strong or is mistaken as radar return.” Detected object may correspond to identified false target (and unidentified real target may correspond to an undetected object). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification includes the case where “detecting objects…” occurs after “assuming an object…” and therefore no objects have been detected during the assuming step. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For this reason, the following citations also read on this limitation. [0077, 85] – “The UE 115 may generate a radar image based on the modified frequency spectrum which may suppress false targets caused by interference… The UE 115-a may identify the target based on the radar image and may estimate a location, speed, and direction of travel of the target 215.”)
receiving surroundings signals from the surroundings ([0079] – “UE 115-b may transmit the signal 205-b… may be an example of a FMCW radar signal”) by the radar sensor; ([0082] – “UE 115-a may receive radar signal 205-b”)
checking the surroundings signals for a presence of a third-party radar signal from a third-party radar sensor of another road user in the surroundings signals; ([0081-82] – “The UE 115-b may transmit an indication of its location to the UE 115-a via the sidelink signaling 220… The UE 115-a, may additionally or alternatively, receive from the UE 115-b, an indication of a set of transmission parameters for a transmit waveform of the signal 205-b… The UE 115-a may utilize the location of the UE 115-b and the set of parameters to identify interference caused by the signal 205-b.” Interference caused by the signal 205-b corresponds to third-party radar signal. Process of identifying interference corresponds to checking the surroundings signals for third party radar signal.) and
assuming that an object that has not been detected by the radar sensor based on the radar signal is present in the surroundings if the third-party radar signal is present. (Examiner notes that 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. In this case, the method claim requires “assuming that an object… is present in the surroundings” if the condition “the third party radar signal is present” occurs. Because the claimed invention can be practiced without the condition occurring, i.e., when the third-party radar signal is not present, this limitation is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim. Further, Gulati teaches this limitation as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system claim 20: [0079-89] - "the UE 115-a may receive radar signal 205-b and may also receive reflected radar signal 210 that is reflected by target 215... The spectrum may include a false peak due to a frequency waveform from the UE 115-d and may include a real peak due to the waveform reflected from the target. The UE 115-c may not be able to identify the real target if the interference comprising the false target is strong or is mistaken as radar return… the UE 115-a may determine portions of a frequency spectrum that are caused by interference… Based on identifying that one or more peaks of a frequency spectrum are caused by interference the UE 115-a may null the portions of the frequency spectrum caused by interference such that true targets may be more readily identified” Compensating for portions of a frequency spectrum that are caused by interference from UE 115-b corresponds to an assumption that such an object has not been detected, i.e., UE 115-a performs interference compensation in order to better identify an object that has been assumed to have not been detected. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
Regarding claim 12,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) further teaches:
The method according to claim 11, wherein:
it is assumed that the third-party radar signal is reflected by the object has not been detected based on the radar signal ([0040] – “the radar received from the interfering UE may be included in the one or more spectrums as a false peak sometimes known as a ghost target or a false peak.” [0079-89] - "the UE 115-a may receive radar signal 205-b and may also receive reflected radar signal 210 that is reflected by target 215... The spectrum may include a false peak due to a frequency waveform from the UE 115-d and may include a real peak due to the waveform reflected from the target. The UE 115-c may not be able to identify the real target if the interference comprising the false target is strong or is mistaken as radar return… the UE 115-a may determine portions of a frequency spectrum that are caused by interference… Based on identifying that one or more peaks of a frequency spectrum are caused by interference the UE 115-a may null the portions of the frequency spectrum caused by interference such that true targets may be more readily identified” Interference caused by the signal 205-b corresponds to third-party radar signal reflections of assumed undetected surroundings, i.e., signal 205-b is removed because it is causing UE 115-a to receive reflections other than reflections of its own transmissions, e.g., ghost target reflections. All recitations of “the object that has not been detected…” will be interpreted as any object that had not been detected by the radar sensor during the assumption step of claim 11. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) or that the third-party radar signal is emitted by the object that has not been detected based on the radar signal.
Regarding claim 13,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) further teaches:
The method according to claim 11, wherein:
the third-party radar signal in the surroundings signals is identified ([0081] – “The UE 115-a may utilize the location of the UE 115-b and the set of parameters to identify interference caused by the signal 205-b.”) based on at least one of a time profile or a spectrum. ([0081] – “For example, the indication of the location of the UE 115-b may include… an indication of a synchronized transmission timing between the UE 115-a and the UE 115-b… The UE 115-a, may additionally or alternatively, receive from the UE 115-b, an indication of a set of transmission parameters for a transmit waveform of the signal 205-b. In some examples, the transmission parameters may be an example of “chirp” parameters for a cycle of a FMCW radar signal. In some examples, the transmission parameters may include a starting frequency, a bandwidth sweep range (e.g., the waveform may be transmitted across a 1 GHz range, a 1.5 GHz range, among other examples of bandwidth sweep ranges), a sweeping time (e.g., the UE 115-a may complete a bandwidth sweep of the waveform in 2 microseconds, 6 microseconds, 12 microseconds, etc.), a direction of a sweep (e.g., a chirp of the waveform may be directed from a higher frequency to a lower frequency, or vice versa), among other examples of transmission parameters.”)
Regarding claim 15,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) further teaches:
The method according to claim 11, further comprising:
determining a reception direction of the third-party radar signal by the radar sensor; and ([0041] – “The receiving UE may calculate one or more spectrums (e.g., range, Doppler, or DoA) by receiving radar from the interfering UE and any potential targets and may predict where a false peak may occur on the one or more spectrums using information provided by the one or more indications transmitted by the interfering UE. The receiving UE may adjust a single spectrum or multiple spectrums to compensate for the identified false peak by removing the data points caused by the interference.” DoA of identified false peak corresponds to reception direction of third-party radar signal)
estimating an angular range in which the object that has not been detected based on the radar signal is located. ([0085] – “Based on compensating for the interference in the frequency spectrum, the UE 115-a may generate a radar image. For example, the UE 115-a may perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) on each of a number of frequency spectrums to generate a 3D radar image… FFT on a DoA spectrum…” All recitations of “the object that has not been detected…” will be interpreted as any object that had not been detected by the radar sensor during the assumption step of claim 11. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
Regarding claim 17,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) further teaches:
The method according to claim 15, further comprising:
checking whether an object that was detected based on the radar signal is present in the estimated angular range. ([0085] – “Based on compensating for the interference in the frequency spectrum, the UE 115-a may generate a radar image. For example, the UE 115-a may perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) on each of a number of frequency spectrums to generate a 3D radar image… FFT on a DoA spectrum… The UE 115-a may identify the target based on the radar image and may estimate a location, speed, and direction of travel of the target 215” Angular range of compensated radar image corresponds to estimated angular range. Target identification from radar image corresponds to checking whether an object was detected in the estimated angular range.)
Regarding claim(s) 20,
Claim(s) 20 is/are system claim(s) corresponding to method claim(s) 11. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 11.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220163660 A1 to Gulati et al in view of 20190302230 A1 to Sun.
Regarding claim 14,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Sun teaches:
The method according to claim 11, wherein:
the surroundings signals are mixed with a predetermined reference signal to identify the third-party radar signal. ([abstract] – “performing frequency mixing on the signal received by a receiving antenna and the reference signal to obtain an intermediate-frequency controllable signal having a frequency consistent with that of the output signal of the signal source.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sun’s known technique to Gulati (‘660)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Gulati (‘660) teaches a base method of radar detection; (2) Sun teaches a specific method of mixing a received signal with a reference signal to obtain an intermediate frequency signal; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved processing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220163660 A1 to Gulati et al in view of US 20190369233 A1 to Niesen.
Regarding claim 16,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
Niesen teaches:
The method according to claim 15, further comprising:
outputting a control signal for suppressing a movement of the vehicle in the estimated angular range. ([0099] – “At block 480, the primary vehicle 405 may operate the vehicle based on the spatial parameters determined about the secondary vehicle 410. For example, the primary vehicle 405 may initiate one or more commands to ensure that the primary vehicle 405 does not collide with or needlessly impede the movement of the secondary vehicle 410.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Niesen’s known technique to Gulati (‘660)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Gulati (‘660) teaches a base method of detection and discrimination between radar targets and interference based on known parameters of potential interferers for use in autonomous driving and collision avoidance (see Gulati paras 79, 85); (2) Niesen teaches a specific technique for determining parameters of potential interferers and determination of driving operations based on determined parameters of potential interferers and detected objects; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved interferer parameter determination; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220163660 A1 to Gulati et al in view of US 20190369233 A1 to Niesen and further in view of US 20190293748 A1 to Gulati.
Regarding claim 18,
Gulati (‘660) in view of Niesen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) in view of Niesen does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
Gulati (‘748) teaches:
The method according to claim 15, further comprising:
increasing a sensitivity of the radar sensor for the estimated angular range. ([0115] – “In step 910, the UE may choose patterns (e.g., a pattern of waveform parameters, a codeword, etc.) based on which parameters are varied across users. The UE may determine the parameters varied across nearby users based on receiving one or more transmissions indicating this information (e.g., from a centralized base station or broadcast by nearby UEs).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gulati (‘748)’s known technique to Gulati (‘660)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Gulati (‘660) teaches a base method of detection and discrimination between radar targets and interference based on known parameters of potential interferers; (2) Gulati (‘748) teaches a specific response to known parameters of potential interferers; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved interferer parameter determination; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220163660 A1 to Gulati et al in view of US 20200025867 A1 to Chen.
Regarding claim 19,
Gulati (‘660) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gulati (‘660) does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Chen teaches:
The method according to claim 11, wherein:
the surroundings signals are received during a transmission pause of the radar sensor, during which emission of the radar signal is not carried out. ([abstract] – “suppressing output of the first detecting signal, wherein the first detecting signal is generated with a first frequency, determining whether a first interference signal is detected in the first frequency during the suppressing, responsive to that the first interference signal is detected in the first frequency, generating a second detecting signal with a second frequency, which is different from the first frequency”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Chen’s known technique to Gulati (‘660)’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Gulati (‘660) teaches a base method of detection and discrimination between radar targets and interference based on known parameters of potential interferers; (2) Chen teaches a specific technique of suppressing transmission to learn about parameters of potential interferers; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved interferer parameter determination; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights