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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong) and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20240396677 hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, Memisoglu teaches A method of transmitting signals for communication and sensing comprising (title “Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms”):
transmitting, from a communication device (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”),
a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal (p.2191 “FMCW waveform”)
within an air interface frame structure having a plurality of resource elements (fig 1a [the chirps and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”); and
transmitting, from the communication device, a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signals within the air interface frame structure (fig 1 “OFDM”),
wherein the FMCW signal occupies a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure (fig 1a “chirps”) and
comprises a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]),
over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”), and
wherein the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and are transmitted during the first symbol, (fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”)
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches
wherein the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and are transmitted during the first symbol, over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
the FMCW waveform is repeated α times over a cyclic preamble (CP) portion of the first symbol, α being a positive integer (Memisoglu fig 1a “CP”),
the FMCW waveform is repeated (β – α) times over an OFDM portion of the first symbol, β being a positive integer greater than α (Memisoglu fig 1a [the chirp is repeated multiple times over an OFDM symbol]),
the first plurality of resource elements occupied by the FMCW signal comprise 1 out of every (β – α) resource elements over the first symbol in a resource block of the air interface frame structure (Memisoglu fig 1a), and
the second plurality of resource elements occupied by the OFDM signal comprise ((β – α) – 1) out of every (β – α) resource elements over the first symbol in the resource block of the air interface frame structure (Memisoglu fig 1a).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
the FMCW waveform is repeated (α + γ) times over a cyclic preamble (CP) portion of the first symbol, α being a positive integer, and γ being a positive fraction (Memisoglu fig 1 [the chirp is repeated 5 times for a CP cycle]),
the FMCW waveform is repeated (β – α) times over an OFDM portion of the first symbol, β being a positive integer greater than α (Memisoglu fig 1),
the first plurality of resource elements occupied by the FMCW signal comprise 1 out of every (β – α) resource elements in a resource block of the air interface frame structure (Memisoglu fig 1), and
the second plurality of resource elements occupied by the OFDM signal comprise ((β – α) – 1) out of every (β – α) resource elements in the resource block of the air interface frame structure (Memisoglu fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the FMCW signal and the transmitting the plurality of OFDM signals comprise:
generating the FMCW signal and the plurality of OFDM signals in digital form, as a digital signal;
converting the digital signal to an analog signal; and transmitting a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the analog signal (Hong p.12 “The plurality of transmitters 300 receive the NTX transmission signals mapped from the subcarrier mapping unit 200, perform inverse fast Fourier transform, insert a periodic prefix, and then perform DA conversion and output” [DA corresponds to the transmitters doing a digital to analog before transmission output]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 6-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong) and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20240396677 hereinafter Ma) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Manolakos (US 20220171016 hereinafter Manolakos).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
the first plurality of resource elements form part of a comb-N pattern spanning L symbols within the air interface frame structure, L and N being positive, non-zero integers, and
the comb-N pattern is occupied by OFDM signals and FMCW signals transmitted from (Hong p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar, and is a graph of a change in frequency versus a signal amplitude for four TX operations.” [interleaving subcarriers correspond to the comb-N pattern]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Manolakos teaches using a plurality of communication devices (Manolakos 0169 “FIG. 5B illustrates an example bistatic radar system.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 4, wherein FMCW signals from the plurality of communication devices are used for multi-device sensing of a target (Manolakos 0169 “FIG. 5B illustrates an example bistatic radar system.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 4, wherein FMCW signals from each of the plurality of communication devices occupy a different frequency offset portion of the comb-N pattern (Manolakos 0330 “FIG. 18A shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1802 for a comb-2, 2-symbol resource with a symbol offset of three symbols in a slot containing 14 symbols each with 12 subcarriers. FIG. 18B shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1804 for a comb-4, 4-symbol resource. FIG. 18C shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1806 for a comb-6, 6-symbol resource.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the comb-N pattern comprises an existing positioning reference signal (PRS) comb-based pattern defined according to an air interface standard (Manolakos 0330 “FIG. 18A shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1802 for a comb-2, 2-symbol resource with a symbol offset of three symbols in a slot containing 14 symbols each with 12 subcarriers. FIG. 18B shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1804 for a comb-4, 4-symbol resource. FIG. 18C shows a DL-PRS resource configuration 1806 for a comb-6, 6-symbol resource.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 7, wherein the air interface standard comprises a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 16 standard (Manolakos 0287 “For example, according to one embodiment, the wireless communications system 1000 may conform to the “5G” standard introduced in the release 15 version of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifications.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the comb-N pattern comprises a symmetrical structure (Manolakos fig 18G).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Manolakos teaches wherein the communication device comprises a base station, and the FMCW signal and the plurality of OFDM signals form a downlink transmission from the base station (0006 “In some aspects, the first wireless communications device corresponds to a base station, a transmission reception point, a relay, or a user equipment (UE).”; 0249 “LTE, and in some cases NR, utilizes OFDM on the downlink and single-carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) on the uplink.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the communication device comprises a user equipment (UE) (Abstract “autonomous vehicles”), and
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Manolakos teaches the FMCW signal and the plurality of OFDM signals form an uplink transmission from the UE (0296 “An example of such a radar measurement session may be a sequence of “chirps” of a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar signal transmitted by the TX base station, with a corresponding sequence of echoed “chirp” of the FMCW radar signal received by the RX base station.”; 0325 “In terms of slot configuration, multistatic radar signals may be communicated using downlink (DL) slot, an uplink (UL) slot, or a flexible (FL) slot”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manolakos with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Manolakos 0320). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manolakos merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Manolakos disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong), Ma et al. (US 20240396677 hereinafter Ma) and further in view of Manolakos (US 20220171016 hereinafter Manolakos) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Eshraghi et al. (US 20170307728 hereinafter Eshraghi).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 9, .
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Manolakos teaches wherein the symmetrical structure comprises a center symbol and one or more pairs of symmetric symbols (Eshraghi claim 15 “superimposing all waveforms within plus and minus half a symbol period of the center symbol of each group having the same set of values and averaging the superimposed I, Q samples to produce for each group an averaged set of I, Q samples, and an average waveform”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Eshraghi with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Eshraghi 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Eshraghi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Eshraghi disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong) and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20240396677 hereinafter Ma) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Altintas et al. (US 20200174095 hereinafter Altintas).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches using a wherein the transmitting the FMCW signal and the transmitting the plurality of OFDM signals comprise:
generating the FMCW signal as a first analog signal (0104 “generating a sinusoidal signal using a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) with an input of the chirp”);
generating the plurality of OFDM signals as a digital signal; converting the digital signal to a second analog signal (0100 “in FIG. 5); (3) encoding the modulated symbols on the subcarriers (in the frequency domain) to generate an intermediate signal; (4) performing IFFT to obtain time domain samples of the intermediate signal (e.g., the time domain samples are separate into a real part and an imaginary part); and (5) using digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to convert the time domain samples into analog signals”);
combining the first analog signal and the second analog signal, to generate a combined analog signal (0086 “At least one benefit of mixing the OFDM baseband signal with the FMCW waveform to generate the combination signal includes: decoupling the radar bandwidth for the FMCW waveform and the communication bandwidth for the OFDM baseband signal.”); and
transmitting a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the combined analog signal (0115 “For example, the combination module 208 transmits the combination signal via the transmitter 193.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 12, further comprising time-aligning the first analog signal and the second analog signal prior to the combining the first analog signal and the second analog signal (Altintas 0110 “mixing the analog signal Re{s(t)} of the OFDM baseband signal with the FMCW waveform to generate a first mixed signal; shifting a phase of the FMCW waveform by 90 degrees and mixing the analog signal Im{s(t)} of the OFDM baseband signal with the phase-shifted FMCW waveform to generate a second mixed signal; and combining the first mixed signal with the second mixed signal to generate the combination signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong), Altintas et al. (US 20200174095 hereinafter Altintas) and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20240396677 hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 16, Memisoglu teaches A device for transmitting signals for communication and sensing comprising (title “Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms”):
a memory (title “radar”);
one or more processors coupled to the memory (title “radar”);
one or more antennas (title “radar”)
(fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”), and
(2) a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signals within the air interface frame structure (fig 1 “OFDM”),
the FMCW signal occupies a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and comprises a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]), over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”),
the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and is transmitted during the first symbol, (fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources . In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”), and
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches
the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and is transmitted during the first symbol, over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches
a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter coupled to the one or more processors; and one or more antennas coupled to the D/A converter, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to generate a digital signal (0100 “in FIG. 5); (3) encoding the modulated symbols on the subcarriers (in the frequency domain) to generate an intermediate signal; (4) performing IFFT to obtain time domain samples of the intermediate signal (e.g., the time domain samples are separate into a real part and an imaginary part); and (5) using digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to convert the time domain samples into analog signals”) and
the D/A converter is configured generate an analog signal based on the digital signal, and
the one or more antennas are configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the analog signal (0115 “For example, the combination module 208 transmits the combination signal via the transmitter 193.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Memisoglu teaches A device for transmitting signals for communication and sensing comprising:
a memory (title “radar”);
one or more processors coupled to the memory (title “radar”);
a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal generator (fig 1a);
one or more antennas (Memisoglu p.2191 “A JRC transceiver and communication receiver with single antenna are considered that the transceiver sends the radar and communication waveforms simultaneously and performs the radar-sensing from reflected signals as being mono-static radar”):
the FMCW signal generator is configured to generate, (fig 1a [the chirps and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”),
the FMCW signal occupying a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and comprising a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]),
over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”,
(fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”),
the one or more antennas are configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal (fig 1a)
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches
a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter coupled to the one or more processors (0100 “in FIG. 5); (3) encoding the modulated symbols on the subcarriers (in the frequency domain) to generate an intermediate signal; (4) performing IFFT to obtain time domain samples of the intermediate signal (e.g., the time domain samples are separate into a real part and an imaginary part); and (5) using digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to convert the time domain samples into analog signals”);
a combiner coupled to the D/A converter and the FMCW signal generator (0086 “At least one benefit of mixing the OFDM baseband signal with the FMCW waveform to generate the combination signal includes: decoupling the radar bandwidth for the FMCW waveform and the communication bandwidth for the OFDM baseband signal.”)
the one or more processors are configured to generate, as a digital signal the D/A converter is configured to generate a second analog signal based on the digital signal(0100 “in FIG. 5); (3) encoding the modulated symbols on the subcarriers (in the frequency domain) to generate an intermediate signal; (4) performing IFFT to obtain time domain samples of the intermediate signal (e.g., the time domain samples are separate into a real part and an imaginary part); and (5) using digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to convert the time domain samples into analog signals”),
the combiner is configured to generate a combined analog signal based on first analog signal and the second analog signal (0086 “At least one benefit of mixing the OFDM baseband signal with the FMCW waveform to generate the combination signal includes: decoupling the radar bandwidth for the FMCW waveform and the communication bandwidth for the OFDM baseband signal.”), and
the one or more antennas are configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the combined analog signal (0115 “For example, the combination module 208 transmits the combination signal via the transmitter 193.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Memisoglu teaches A method for receiving signals for communication and sensing comprising (title “radar”):
receiving, at a communication device, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal within an air interface frame structure having a plurality of resource elements (fig 1a [the chirps and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”),
receiving, at the communication device, a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signals within the air interface frame structure (fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”);
generating, at the communication device, one or more of a range estimate, a Doppler estimate, and/or an Angle of Arrival (AoA) estimate based on the FMCW signal (table 1 “range of targets”); and
the FMCW signal occupies a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and comprises a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]),
over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”), and
wherein the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and are transmitted during the first symbol, (fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”)
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches
generating, at the communication device, demodulated data symbols based on the plurality of OFDM signals (0034 “The modulation and demodulation of an OFDM signal may be efficiently implemented through fast Fourier transform (FFT) and inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Memisoglu teaches A device for receiving signals for communication and sensing comprising (title “Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms”):
one or more antennas (title “radar”);
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein (title “radar”):
the one or more antennas are configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal, the RF signal comprising (1) a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal within an air interface frame structure having a plurality of resource elements (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”), and
(2) a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signals within the air interface frame structure, wherein (fig 1 “OFDM”):
the FMCW signal occupies a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and comprises a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]),
over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”),
the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and is transmitted during the first symbol, fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources . In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”),
(table 1 “range of targets”)
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter coupled to the one or more antennas (0086 “A lower communication bandwidth of the OFDM baseband signal reduces requirements on circuit components (e.g., analog-to-digital converters).”);
one or more processors coupled to the A/D converter (0086 “A lower communication bandwidth of the OFDM baseband signal reduces requirements on circuit components (e.g., analog-to-digital converters).”);
the A/D converter is configured to generate a digital signal based on the RF signal (0086 “A lower communication bandwidth of the OFDM baseband signal reduces requirements on circuit components (e.g., analog-to-digital converters).”), and
the one or more processors are configured receive the digital signal FMCW signal as represented in the digital signal (0004 “such that the integrated radar communication device 170 receives radar feedback associated with the waveform and then performs radar processing on the radar feedback.”)
generate demodulated data symbols based on the plurality of OFDM signals as represented in the digital signal (0034 “The modulation and demodulation of an OFDM signal may be efficiently implemented through fast Fourier transform (FFT) and inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memisoglu et al. (Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms [NPL] hereinafter Memisoglu) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220147980 hereinafter Hong), Altintas et al. (US 20200174095 hereinafter Altintas) and further in view of Brosche (DE 102009029051).
Regarding claim 20, Memisoglu teaches A device for receiving signals for communication and sensing comprising (title “Orthogonal Coexistence of Overlapped Radar and Communication Waveforms”):
one or more antennas (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”);
a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) receiver (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”)
one or more processors (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”)
a memory coupled to the one or more processors (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”), wherein:
the one or more antennas are configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal (p.2191 “JRC transceiver”),
the RF signal comprising (1) a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal (p.2191 “FMCW waveform”) within an air interface frame structure having a plurality of resource elements (fig 1a [the chirps and OFDM symbols corresponds to a plurality of resource elements]),
each resource element defined over a symbol duration in a time domain and a subcarrier in a frequency domain (fig 1; p.2190 “This is because it provides high spectral efficiency thanks to the multi-carrier transmission where its subcarriers are overlapped in an orthogonal manner in the frequency domain. To eliminate the inter-symbol interference (ISI) and provide a circular convolution with the channel”), and
(2) a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signals within the air interface frame structure, wherein (fig 1 “OFDM”):
the FMCW signal occupies a first plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and comprises a FMCW waveform repeated in the time domain and transmitted during a first symbol (fig 1a [the chirps corresponding to FMCW are transmitted during an OFDM period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period where T.sub.O corresponds to a symbol period]), over a first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.2191 “. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems, a new orthogonal coexistence approach has been introduced by using the same resources. This alignment is achieved by adjusting the chirp duration of FMCW signal so that the signal is accumulated over the pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain”),
the plurality of OFDM signals occupy a second plurality of resource elements in the air interface frame structure and is transmitted during the first symbol, (fig 1a-1b; 2191 “the orthogonal coexistence of these waveforms are provided by a special time-domain alignment of the FMCW waveforms while overlapping on the same time and frequency resources. In this way, being different than the orthogonal coexistence approaches that different time, frequency, and space resources are separately used for radar and communication systems”)
the FMCW receiver is configured to generate one or more of a range estimate, a Doppler estimate, and/or an Angle of Arrival (AoA) estimate based on the FMCW signal as represented in the first split signal (table 1 “range of targets”),
Memisoglu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches over a second plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame structure (p.3 “FIG. 2 is an example for explaining a subcarrier interleaved MIMO multiplexing method applied in a conventional OFDM radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kong with the teachings of Memisoglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously simplify design (Hong p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing for an OFDM radar. Since both Memisoglu and Hong disclose similar joint radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Altintas teaches
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter (0086 “A lower communication bandwidth of the OFDM baseband signal reduces requirements on circuit components (e.g., analog-to-digital converters).”)
the A/D converter is configured to generate a digital signal (0086 “A lower communication bandwidth of the OFDM baseband signal reduces requirements on circuit components (e.g., analog-to-digital converters).”)
the one or more processors are configured to generate demodulated data symbols based on the plurality of OFDM signals as represented in the digital signal (0034 “The modulation and demodulation of an OFDM signal may be efficiently implemented through fast Fourier transform (FFT) and inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Altintas with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the radar and communication system (Altintas 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Altintas merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Altintas disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Brosche teaches
a signal splitter (p.33 “the receive intermediate frequency signal 206 about the splitting facility 503 on two channels 504i and 504q split and the analog / digital converters 502i and 502 q or the delta-sigma modulators 502i .”)
a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) receiver coupled to the signal splitter (fig 8)
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter coupled to the signal splitter (fig 8)
the signal splitter is configured to generate a first split signal and a second split signal based on the RF signal (p.33 “the receive intermediate frequency signal 206 about the splitting facility 503 on two channels 504i and 504q split and the analog / digital converters 502i and 502 q or the delta-sigma modulators 502i .”)
the A/D converter is configured to generate a digital signal based on the second split signal (p.33 “the receive intermediate frequency signal 206 about the splitting facility 503 on two channels 504i and 504q split and the analog / digital converters 502i and 502 q or the delta-sigma modulators 502i .”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brosche with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce complexities and costs (Brosche p.13). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brosche merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Brosche disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ma teaches the co-existence of a radar and communication transmissions over different subcarriers and not over the first plurality of subcarriers of the air interface frame (fig 3, fig 7; “As shown in FIG. 7, the sensing signal is sparse in the frequency domain. The sensing signal may occupy only one subcarrier for every four subcarriers. The remaining subcarriers may be used for transmitting data signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ma with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing accuracy (Ma 0074). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ma merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing configuration. Since both the cited prior art and Ma disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Tsvelykh et al. (US 20200319327) discloses “In an embodiment, a millimeter-wave system includes a first circuit having M channels, one or more antennas coupled to the first circuit, and a controller that includes a resource scheduler module. The controller is configured to operate the millimeter-wave system as a radar device and as a communication device based on an output of the resource scheduler module. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights