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 1-7 pending.
Response to Arguments
Amendments and remarks filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits (Remarks pg. 4) that “The Office Action maintains the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Examiner notes that these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Argument 1 (Remarks pg. 4-5): Applicant submits that Ramakrishnan does not disclose performing the second sampling of the intermediate signal a plurality of times within the first time interval between adjacent first sampling times as claimed in amended claims 1 and 5.
Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ramakrishnan teaches concurrent processing by ADCs 110 at [0021] and Fig. 2. Applicant appears to agree with this at Remarks, pg. 1, first paragraph. Ramakrishnan further teaches that higher (second) sampling rate samples (corresponding to top of Fig. 2) occur within first time intervals between adjacent sampling times of lower (first) sampling rate samples (corresponding to intervals between adjacent samples at bottom of Fig. 2). Because first sampling rate may be, e.g., 1000Ms/s, and second sampling rate may be, e.g., 250Ms/s, (see [0030-31]) and both sampling rates are used in parallel, there necessarily exist time intervals between adjacent samples of the first sampling rate such that a plurality of second samples are taken during that time.
Argument 2 (Remarks pg. 5): Applicant submits that the combination of Ramakrishnan and Buddendick corresponds to either (1) a system that sequentially processes the sequences in S1 to S5 as in Buddendick or (2) a system that processes signals in parallel as in Ramakrishnan.
Response 2 Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that a combination of Buddendick in view of Ramakrishnan may correspond to, e.g., using the concurrent sampling of Ramakrishnan to sample the transmissions of Buddendick.
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 2-3 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 2, the phrase “excluding a second period” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the transmission having a fixed frequency excludes the second period, or whether the first sampling excludes the second period. Claim 3 rejected as dependent.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180356511 A1 to BUDDENDICK in view of 20210063550 A1 to RAMAKRISHNAN.
Regarding claim 1,
BUDDENDICK teaches:
A detection device comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit an electromagnetic wave or a sound wave as a transmission signal; ([0024] – “FIG. 2 shows FMCW radar sensor 12 in the form of a block diagram. A high-frequency oscillator 18, which is controllable in its frequency, generates a transmit signal that reaches an antenna 22 via a mixer 20 and is then emitted by the antenna as radar lobe 14.”)
a receiver configured to receive a signal obtained by reflecting the transmission signal from an object, as a reception signal; ([0024] – “The radar echoes produced by road surface 16 or by other objects in front of the vehicle are received by antenna 22”)
a mixer configured to mix the transmission signal and the reception signal and output a mixed signal as an intermediate signal; ([0024] – “The radar echoes produced by road surface 16 or by other objects in front of the vehicle are received by antenna 22 and mixed in mixer 20 with a portion of the transmit signal generated by high-frequency oscillator 18 at the reception instant. In this way an intermediate-frequency signal 24 is obtained by beating”) and
a detector configured to detect a motion of the object and a distance to the object from the intermediate signal; ([0024] – “intermediate-frequency signal 24 is obtained by beating, which is further evaluated in an evaluation unit 26.” [0026-28] – “Intermediate-frequency signal 24 is first sampled as a time signal and digitized, and is then converted into a Fourier spectrum, e.g., by a “Fast-Fourier transform”. In this spectrum, each located object is characterized in the form of a peak at a certain frequency, which is a function of the distance and the relative velocity of the object… distances and relative velocities of objects in front of vehicle 10 are measured in the usual manner.”)
wherein the detector performs first sampling of the intermediate signal at first sampling times (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) to detect the motion of the object, (Fig. 3; [0028] – “In modulation sequence S5… the frequency is constant… Thus, it is a pure Doppler frequency in which a measurement of the relative velocity is performed exclusively.”) and
the detector performs second sampling of the intermediate signal a plurality of times (Fig. 3; [0026-28] – “Sequences S1-S4 are FMCW sequences in which the transmit signal is modulated according to edges 28-34. During these sequences, distances and relative velocities of objects in front of vehicle 10 are measured in the usual manner.” Examiner notes that sampling of S1-S4 occurs between adjacent samplings of S5. )
BUDDENDICK does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
RAMAKRISHNAN teaches:
first sampling of the intermediate signal at first sampling times according to a first sampling frequency defined by a first time interval (Fig. 2; [0021] – “second ADC 110b may sample from the second frequency range of the analog signal to derive a second digital signal.” Examiner notes that their best interpretation of a “time interval” which defines a sampling frequency in light of the specification and remarks filed September 16, 2025 corresponds to the time interval between each sample at a given sampling frequency, i.e., it corresponds to a sampling period.)
second sampling of the intermediate signal (Fig. 2; [0021] – “the first ADC 110a may sample from the first frequency range of the analog signal to derive a first digital signal”) a plurality of times according to a second sampling frequency defined by a second time interval (Fig. 2; [0039] – “second sampling rate that is different from the first sampling rate”) smaller than the first time interval, ([0043] – “the first range of frequencies of the analog signal includes more frequencies than the second range of frequencies of the analog signal, and the first sampling rate is greater than the second sampling rate” Examiner notes that smaller time interval necessarily corresponds to higher sampling frequency, see also Remarks filed September 16, 2025 pg. 6 – “…since the second time interval is smaller than the first time interval, second sampling occurs at a higher frequency”) within the first time interval between adjacent first sampling times among the first sampling times to detect the distance to the object (Fig. 2 – Higher (second) sampling rate samples (corresponding to top of Fig. 2) occur within first time intervals between adjacent sampling times of lower (first) sampling rate samples (corresponding to intervals between adjacent samples at bottom of Fig. 2). Because first sampling rate may be, e.g., 1000Ms/s, and second sampling rate may be, e.g., 250Ms/s, (see [0030-31]) and both sampling rates are used in parallel, there necessarily exists time intervals between adjacent samples of the first sampling rate such that a plurality of second samples are taken during that time.)
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 RAMAKRISHNAN’s known technique to BUDDENDICK’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) BUDDENDICK teaches a base method of transmitting and sampling a signal transmitted with a plurality of modulation patterns including constant frequency patterns and swept frequency patterns; (2) RAMAKRISHNAN teaches a specific technique of sampling the signal using two different sampling frequencies / periods concurrently, where larger ranges of frequencies of analog signal are sampled using greater sampling rates; (3) Buddendick further teaches that different modulation sequences may be used for different measurements, e.g., constant frequency for pure relative velocity measurement and swept frequencies (i.e., range of frequencies of the analog signal includes more frequencies compared to the constant frequency) for combined distance and velocity measurements. Ramakrishnan further teaches (Fig. 2; [0043] – “the first range of frequencies of the analog signal includes more frequencies than the second range of frequencies of the analog signal, and the first sampling rate is greater than the second sampling rate.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; 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).
Regarding claim 2,
BUDDENDICK in view of RAMAKRISHNAN teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
BUDDENDICK further teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter outputs the transmission signal having a fixed frequency during a first period in which the detector performs the first sampling, excluding a second period in which the detector performs the second sampling, (Fig. 3; [0028] – “ In modulation sequence S5, on the other hand, the frequency is constant,” Examiner notes that second period may correspond to, e.g., S1-S4 during which second sampling occurs. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) and outputs the transmission signal obtained by sweeping a frequency during the second period. (Fig. 3; [0028] – “Sequences S1-S4 are FMCW sequences in which the transmit signal is modulated according to edges 28-34”)
Regarding claim 3,
BUDDENDICK in view of RAMAKRISHNAN teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
BUDDENDICK further teaches:
The detection device according to claim 2, wherein in the second period, the transmitter sweeps the frequency of the transmission signal from a first frequency to a second frequency, and then sweeps the frequency from the second frequency to the first frequency. (Fig. 3 – e.g., S1 and S2; [0026] – “If the same object is now located once at edge 28 and then, slightly later, at edge 32 again, the frequencies of these two peaks may be added up. Since edges 28 and 32 have an opposite gradient, the distance-dependent components cancel each other out and only the Doppler component that is a function of the relative velocity is left. Conversely, if the frequencies of the two peaks are subtracted, the velocity-dependent components cancel each other out, and a pure distance component is obtained, which makes it possible to determine the distance of the object.”)
Regarding claim 4,
BUDDENDICK in view of RAMAKRISHNAN teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
BUDDENDICK does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
RAMAKRISHNAN further teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a band separation filter that separates the intermediate signal into a first intermediate signal having a first frequency band and a second intermediate signal having a second frequency band higher than the first frequency band; (Figs. 1-2; [0014-17] – “As shown in FIG. 1, the TIA 104 may output the analog signal to a first frequency filter 106a and a second frequency filter 106b. That is, the first frequency filter 106a and the second frequency filter 106b may receive (e.g., concurrently) the analog signal from the same TIA 104… the first frequency filter 106a may be configured to pass a first range of frequencies, and the second frequency filter 106b may be configured to pass a second range of frequencies. ”)
wherein the detector performs the first sampling on the first intermediate signal and performs the second sampling on the second intermediate signal. (Figs. 1-2; [0014-24] – “Accordingly, the first ADC 110a may receive the first frequency range of the analog signal from the frequency filter 106a via the first DA 108a, and the second ADC 110b may receive the second frequency range of the analog signal from the second frequency filter 106b via the second DA 108b. The ADCs 110 may be configured to convert (e.g., concurrently) the respective analog signals to respective digital signals for use by one or more processors 112.”)
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 RAMAKRISHNAN’s known technique to BUDDENDICK’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) BUDDENDICK teaches a base method of transmitting and sampling a signal transmitted with a plurality of modulation patterns including constant frequency patterns and swept frequency patterns; (2) RAMAKRISHNAN teaches a specific technique of sampling the signal using two different sampling frequencies / periods, where larger ranges of frequencies of analog signal are sampled using greater sampling rates; (3) Buddendick further teaches that different modulation sequences may be used for different measurements, e.g., constant frequency for pure relative velocity measurement and swept frequencies (i.e., range of frequencies of the analog signal includes more frequencies compared to the constant frequency) for combined distance and velocity measurements. Ramakrishnan further teaches (Fig. 2; [0043] – “the first range of frequencies of the analog signal includes more frequencies than the second range of frequencies of the analog signal, and the first sampling rate is greater than the second sampling rate.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; 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).
Regarding claim(s) 5,
Claim(s) 5 is/are method claim(s) corresponding to device claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 5 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180356511 A1 to BUDDENDICK in view of 20210063550 A1 to RAMAKRISHNAN and further in view of US 20230120237 A1 to CHO.
Regarding claim 6,
BUDDENDICK in view of RAMAKRISHNAN teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
BUDDENDICK further teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a controller configured to control a frequency of the transmission signal to be transmitted by the transmitter; ([0024] – “FIG. 2 shows FMCW radar sensor 12 in the form of a block diagram. A high-frequency oscillator 18, which is controllable in its frequency, generates a transmit signal”)
wherein
when a request for distance measurement is not input from an external device, the controller sets the frequency of the transmission signal to a constant frequency, (Fig. 3; [0028] – “In modulation sequence S5… the frequency is constant… Thus, it is a pure Doppler frequency in which a measurement of the relative velocity is performed exclusively.”) and
(Fig. 3; [0026-28] – “Sequences S1-S4 are FMCW sequences in which the transmit signal is modulated according to edges 28-34. During these sequences, distances and relative velocities of objects in front of vehicle 10 are measured in the usual manner.”)
CHO teaches:
request for distance measurement is input from the external device. ([0011] – “identifying, based on a first-time interval having a first period, a request to output a wireless signal for identifying a distance between the electronic device and the external object. The method may comprise adjusting, in a state of outputting the wireless signal in response to identifying the request, the frequency of the wireless signal”)
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 Cho’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Buddendick teaches a base method using specific transmission frequencies / modulations to determine target distance; (2) Cho teaches a specific method of receiving a request to determine target distance and, in response, adjusting transmission frequency and determining target distance; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; 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).
Regarding claim 7,
BUDDENDICK in view of RAMAKRISHNAN teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
BUDDENDICK further teaches:
The detection method according to claim 5, wherein
a frequency of the transmission signal is set to a constant frequency to detect the motion of the object when a request for distance measurement is not input from an external device, (Fig. 3; [0028] – “In modulation sequence S5… the frequency is constant… Thus, it is a pure Doppler frequency in which a measurement of the relative velocity is performed exclusively.”)
the frequency of the transmission signal is swept to detect the distance to the object (Fig. 3; [0026-28] – “Sequences S1-S4 are FMCW sequences in which the transmit signal is modulated according to edges 28-34. During these sequences, distances and relative velocities of objects in front of vehicle 10 are measured in the usual manner.”)
CHO teaches:
request for distance measurement is input from the external device. ([0011] – “identifying, based on a first-time interval having a first period, a request to output a wireless signal for identifying a distance between the electronic device and the external object. The method may comprise adjusting, in a state of outputting the wireless signal in response to identifying the request, the frequency of the wireless signal”)
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 Cho’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Buddendick teaches a base method using specific transmission frequencies / modulations to determine target distance; (2) Cho teaches a specific method of receiving a request to determine target distance and, in response, adjusting transmission frequency and determining target distance; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; 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).
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