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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR 20210100642, filed on September 28, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6, 8, 13 and 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 20210063566 A1).
As to claims 1 and 24, Smith discloses an apparatus, comprising: one or more memories comprising executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions (Fig. 1 item 111) and
cause the apparatus to transmit in an environment via a radar device of the apparatus based on a transmission configuration (Fig. 1 item 130 configured with an at least one antenna as disclosed in Para. 108.),
one or more first signals of a plurality of signals in a first frame of a plurality of frames according to a first delay value occurring after a frame prior to the first frame, wherein the transmission configuration comprises a common transmission configuration for use in the environment (The Examiner is interpreting common as being frequencies being at least twice transmitted that would cross-interfere but for intervention. See Smith Fig. 9); and
transmit one or more second signals via the radar device in at least a second frame of the plurality of frames according to a second delay value occurring after the first frame based on the transmission configuration, wherein the second delay value is different from the first delay value (Fig. 9A shows a delay in time whereas Fig. 9B shows a delay in frequency.).
As to claim 2, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmission configuration comprises a set of parameters for generating and transmitting the plurality of signals, including the one or more first signals and the one or more second signals (Figs. 9A-B).
As to claim 3, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the set of parameters comprise one or more of: a duration associated with the plurality of signals, a duration of a frequency ramp up and a frequency ramp down associated with the plurality of signals, a duration of an inactive period between transmission of signals of the plurality of signals, a number of the one or more first signals to be transmitted during the first frame or a number of the one or more second signals to be transmitted during the second frame, a carrier frequency associated with the radar device, or a frequency sweep or a bandwidth associated with the plurality of signals (Fig. 9 signals 906A, 906B, 916B and 916A are shown to have common features as claimed.).
As to claim 6, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive signaling indicating the transmission configuration from a network entity (Fig. 4 step 404).
As to claim 13, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit a first message to a second apparatus in the environment, wherein the first message indicate a first set of transmission configurations supported by the radar device of the apparatus; and receive one or more second messages from one or more other apparatuses in the environment, wherein the one or more second messages indicate one or more second sets of transmission configurations supported by radar devices of the one or more other apparatuses in the environment (Para. 25 “Alternatively, in some examples, the external computing device may receive configuration parameters of the sensors of the vehicle and other sensors of other vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle.”).
As to claims 8 and 17, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 6/13, wherein at least one of the first message or the one or more second messages comprises at least one of: a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) packet (Fig. 3 shows a vehicle-to-device V2D which is similar to V2X. But Para. 79 discloses “Although FIG. 3 shows that the vehicles 302A-302D communicate via the computing device 304, in some examples, the vehicles 302A-302D may additionally or alternatively communicate directly with one another.”), a sidelink control information (SC) message, a media access control - control element (MAC-CE) message, or a radio resource control (RRC) message (Para. 25 “the external computing device may provide instructions to the vehicle and/or the other vehicles with suitable adjustments for corresponding sensors to reduce the interference between the various sensors.”).
As to claim 18, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first message comprises a groupcast message broadcast to multiple other apparatuses, including the second apparatus, in the environment or a unicast message transmitted only to the second apparatus (Fig. 3 and Para. 79.).
As to claim 19, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein delay values, including at least the first delay value and the second delay value, are different between each frame of a set of frames of the plurality of frames, including at least the first frame and the second frame, according to a delay value pattern (Fig. 9A. The Examiner notes that the delay of Fig. 9A is configured by a computer.).
As to claim 20, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the delay value pattern is different from other delay value patterns for use by other apparatuses in the environment (Fig. 9A shows at least two different delay patterns for 906A and 906B.)
As to claim 21, Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 19, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to select the delay value pattern from a plurality of delay patterns (Para. 27).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Zaidi (US 2022/0308204 A1).
As to claim 4, Smith does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmission configuration depends on a geographical area of the environment and the transmission configuration is different for different geographical areas.
In the same field of endeavor, Zaidi teaches “In adjusting its chirp slope for a city street environment, the radar 300 can perform object detection and classification using a smaller range maximum requirement in order to reduce its range resolution parameter value for improved detection and classification of objects in city streets (Para. 54).”
In view of the teachings of Zaidi, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to modify Smith to include the adjustment as taught by Zaidi in order to take into account various environments thus improving detection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Kim (US 20210407297 A1)
As to claim 5, Smith does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmission configuration depends on a speed of the radar device.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches “it may be possible to provide a vehicle and a controlling method thereof capable of providing efficient autonomous driving by changing the detection range and power consumption of the sensor according to the speed of the vehicle (Para. 64).”
In view of the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to account for own-speed in order to set the appropriate range resolution thereby improving detection accuracy.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Gulati (US 20200025865 A1).
As to claim 7, Smith does not clarify as to whether it teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the signaling indicating the transmission configuration comprises an index associated with a transmission configuration codebook, the transmission configuration codebook includes a plurality of different transmission configurations, and the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to select the transmission configuration from the transmission configuration codebook based on the index.
Looking at Smith Fig. 6, the assignment would meet the scope of an index, and whether the assignment is calculated each time or retrieved from a lookup table is one of two obvious choices both of which would be easily conceivable by one of ordinary skill.
In same field of endeavor, Gulati teaches “codebook of radar transmission parameters is associated with a vehicle ID (e.g., a vehicle ID is assigned certain radar transmission parameters (e.g., from a network)) (Para. 77).”
In view of the teachings of Gulati, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to properly assign via ID (index) transmission parameters via a code book to improve efficiency meaning that the parameters to not have to be calculated on the fly each time thus saving processing time.
As to claim 11, Smith does not clarify as to whether it teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to select the transmission configuration from a transmission configuration codebook.
The modification of Smith with Gulati in claim 7 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Gulati and in further view of Khoryaev (US 2018/0242190 A1).
As to claim 12, Smith in view of Gulati does not teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to select the transmission configuration from the transmission configuration codebook based on at least one of a geographical area of the environment.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoryaev teaches “the network shown in FIG. 1 is configured to establish congestion conditions and react to the conditions to control congestion on V2X spectrum resources. It may control congestion by for example adjusting transmission parameters or behavior of the subscribers. For example the vehicle terminals and other UEs may be configured to obtain indicators indicating the congestion condition in the sidelink or indicating information about the vehicle or the UEs and dynamically change their behavior and/or transmission settings, including for example stored transmission resource parameters or transmission behavior, in dependence on the determined indicators and stored data or data received from the network in response to sending the indicators to the network (Para. 45).”
In view of the teachings of Khorvaev, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to modify Smith to include the adjustment as taught by Khoryaev in order to take into account various environments thus improving detection as evidenced by Zaidi discussed supra. The motivation to store previous transmission configurations is the same motivation as given for the modification with Gulati.
Claims 9 – 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Zhou (US 20200344643 A1).
As to claim 9, Smith does not teach the apparatus of claim 6, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to perform one or more measurements, wherein the one or more measurements comprise at least one of: channel busy ratio (CBR) measurements, measurements indicating a number of unique UE identifiers (IDs) associated with UEs operating in the environment, one or more measurements indicating an energy sensed on a radar-dedicated frequency band, or one or more measurements indicating a density of UEs in the environment based on one or more sensors other than the radar device.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches “By accurately estimating vehicle densities, in an embodiment, the global communication management entity 130 can predict Channel Busy Ratio (CBR) and Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI), which in turn are used to control the V2X communication parameters of the vehicular user equipments 110. Alternatively, these type of information (CBR, RSSI) can be measured by the individual vehicular user equipments 110 and transmitted directly to the global communication management entity 130. Once the global communication management entity 130 has the CBR and/or RSSI information, it can make decisions on the transmission parameters of vehicles (Para. 118).”
In view of the teachings of Zho, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before to include with V2X communication the CBR, RSSI and densities, so that the remote computer can better and more efficiently assign radar parameters to make most efficient use of CBR, RSSI and densities thus improving overall efficiency.
As to claim 10, Smith in view of Zho teaches the apparatus of claim 9, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit information indicating the one or more measurements to the network entity, wherein the signaling indicating the transmission configuration received from the network entity is based on the information indicating the one or more measurements (As modified by Zho wherein Zho as cited provides for 1) estimation and 2) user measures and sends data communication management. The motivation for 1) is reduce information over air waves and motivation for 2) is to reduce the amount of processing at the communication management.).
As to claim 16, Smith does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the first message and receive the one or more second messages periodically or based on at least one criterion.
Smitch discloses “the external computing device may provide instructions to the vehicle and/or the other vehicles with suitable adjustments for corresponding sensors to reduce the interference between the various sensors (Para. 25).” Here, the “suitable adjustments” apply to the sensors (as instructed by external computing device), but it would have been readily apparent to the ordinarily skilled before filing that “suitable adjustments” would also be necessary for the communication between vehicles to mitigate interference between the external computing device and any communication devices operating on same frequency as the external computing device.
As such, Smith makes obvious the need for reduced interference between any communication device.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches “FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram illustrating the steps of a corresponding method 200 for managing V2X communication parameters of the plurality of vehicular user equipments 110 of the V2X communication network 100 according to an embodiment. The method 200 comprises the steps of: determining, at step 201, one or more V2X communication parameters of one or more vehicular user equipments 110 of the plurality of vehicular user equipments 110, wherein the one or more V2X communication parameters are associated with the local V2V congestion control scheme implemented on the processor 111 of the vehicular user equipment 110 and/or a V2V communication module 113 of the vehicular user equipment 110 for communicating with the other vehicular user equipments 110 (Para. 67).”
In view of the teachings of Zhou, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply “suitable adjustments” to any communication device in order to reduce interference.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view Cha (US 20200367193 A1).
As to claim 14, Smith does not teach the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the transmission configuration comprises a transmission configuration most indicated in the first set of transmission configurations and the one or more second sets of transmission configurations.
In the same field of endeavor, Cha teaches “For reporting by the UE as described above, the BS/LMF/location server may indicate to the UE that the RS based common sequence transmission scheme in which specific RS resources, such as PRSs, and/or specific RS resource sets are simultaneously transmitted by a plurality of TRPs/BSs/cells is used (Para. 49).”
In view of Cha, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to determine common sequences to be used in order to determine what sequences to be used so that said sequences do not have to be determined on the fly thereby reducing computational load and improving efficiency.
As to claims 15, Smith in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 14, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive an indication from a network entity indicating the transmission configuration (as modified in claim 14.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith.
As to claim 22, Smith does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 21, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive an indication, from a network entity, of the delay value pattern to select from the plurality of delay patterns.
Smith discloses “the external computing device may provide instructions to the vehicle and/or the other vehicles with suitable adjustments for corresponding sensors to reduce the interference between the various sensors (Para. 25).”.
Smith further discloses “the external computing device may be configured to determine a plurality of sets of channel assignments. The sets of channel assignments determined by the computing device may include a sequence of channels, channel parameters, and associated timing information. The sets of channel assignments may be determined in advance, without any input or determinations based on the vehicles. The sets of channel assignments may be determined in a way to minimize potential channel interference between two vehicles if two vehicles are each assigned a different channel assignment of the sets of channel assignments (Para. 26).”
Smith further discloses “The radar planning system may be able to determine when two channels are too closely spaced for transmissions by two radar units on the two channels to not interfere with each other. In some instances, adjacent channels may cause interference based on the linear frequency ramps of the two channels being too close together. Because radar signals take time to propagate, two radars that are located sufficiently far from each other may interfere with each other when operating on adjacent channels due to objects causing reflections being further away from the second vehicle. That is, interference may be caused when an object reflects a radar signal transmitted on a first channel, and the second vehicle receives the reflected signal and incorrectly assumes it was transmitted on the second channel on which the second radar was operating. In practice, this may manifest as the second vehicle making an incorrect detection based on the received signal on the incorrect channel. Therefore, the radar planning system may determine situations where adjacent channels may cause interference and assign radar channels to minimize potential interference (Para. 121).”
Looking at Fig. 9A, it is readily apparent that the “suitable adjustments” include delays that would inherently have to be different given Smith considers at least four sensor equipped vehicles shown in Fig. 3 wherein the delays would have to be different to allow for time multiplexing so that not one of any of the said four vehicles interferes with any of the other said four vehicles. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the “suitable adjustments” to include timing information such that the vehicles operate sensors with different delay timing sequences/pattern as shown in Fig. 9A in order to reduce interference.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smith in view of Aydogdu (US 20210003662 A1).
As to claim 23, Smith teaches in part the apparatus of claim 1, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to randomly select a different delay value to apply between frames of the plurality of frames, wherein the randomly selected different delay values are within a range between no delay and a maximum delay value.
Smith Fig. 9 item 906 A shows one chirp having no delay. It is clear from Smith at Para. 121 (as cited in claim 22) of Smith, that Smith takes into account maximum unambiguous ranges between sensors thus as to avoid mistakenly attributed reflections with the wrong sensors. Smith does not teach the delays being random.
In same field of endeavor, Aydogdu at Para. 64 teaches vehicles having random start times. Aydogdu at Para. 19 also considers the unambiguous ranges.
In view of the teachings Aydogdu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply random start times in order to prevent jamming and/or hacking thereby improving security.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 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 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