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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan (US 20210215820) in view of Melzer (US 20200088838), and Zhou (US 20180352464).
Regarding claim 1, Ertan teaches a radar system comprising: a transmitter pipeline comprising a plurality of transmitters, each configured to transmit radio signals; a receiver pipeline comprising plurality of receivers (para 23, “The radar system includes a plurality of transmitters and a plurality of receivers. Each of the plurality of transmitters is coupled to a corresponding antenna, and each of the plurality of receivers is coupled to a corresponding antenna”), each configured to receive radio signals that include signals transmitted by the plurality of transmitters and reflected from objects in an environment (para 24, “These signals are reflected from objects (also known as targets) in the environment and received by one or more receivers of the radar system. A transmitter-receiver pair is called a virtual radar (or sometimes a virtual receiver).”); and a controller configured to control the operation of the transmitter pipeline and the receiver pipeline, as defined by a coordination signal received from a local controller; wherein at least one of the transmitter pipeline and the receiver pipeline avoid interference from other radar systems as defined by the controller (para 37, “The interference manager uses these results to decide on the operating parameters of the radio signal transmission and uses this information to create “scan control information” 516. The scan control information 516 includes transmit power of the radio signal; receive gain of the analog front end; and the time slot or the frequency band or both of the radio signal.”).
Regarding claim 1, Ertan does not teach an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, wherein the interference measuring subsystem is configured to estimate the power level of interference in the frequency subbands and the time slots: wherein the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal as defined by the interference levels in the different frequency subbands and time slots, and wherein the central controller is configured to transmit respective coordination signals to each of the plurality of other radar systems; wherein at least one of the transmitter pipeline and the receiver pipeline avoid interference from the other radar systems as defined by the coordination signal received by the central controller and the respective coordination signals received by each of the plurality of other radar systems-controller.
Regarding claim 1, Melzer teaches an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, wherein the interference measuring subsystem is configured to estimate the power level of interference in the frequency subbands and the time slots (para 61 and 62) at least one of the transmitter pipeline and the receiver pipeline avoid interference from the other radar systems as defined by the coordination signal received by the central controller and the respective coordination signals received by each of the plurality of other radar systems (para 40, 45, and 46). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, wherein the interference measuring subsystem is configured to estimate the power level of interference in the frequency subbands and the time slots at least one of the transmitter pipeline and the receiver pipeline avoid interference from the other radar systems as defined by the coordination signal received by the central controller and the respective coordination signals received by each of the plurality of other radar systems controller because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal as defined by the interference levels in the different frequency subbands and time slots, and wherein the central controller is configured to transmit respective coordination signals to each of the plurality of other radar systems (para 49). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal as defined by the interference levels in the different frequency subbands and time slots, and wherein the central controller is configured to transmit respective coordination signals to each of the plurality of other radar systems because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 2, Ertan teaches the receiver pipeline and the transmitter pipeline operate at a frequency selected by the controller, as defined by the central controller, via the coordination signal (para 37, “The interference manager 503 may also decide that the current interference level is too high to provide reliable detection of targets and thus provides this information 515 to other parts in the overall system (for example the control and processing block 102 in FIG. 1). The interference manager 503 also provides control information 512 regarding what types of signal measurements are needed and at what intervals”).
Regarding claim 3, Ertan teaches the receiver pipeline and the transmitter pipeline operate at a time slot selected by the controller, as defined by the central controller, via coordinator signal (para 26, “ A control processor 210 controls the operation of the transmitter 206 and the receiver 208 and estimates the range and velocity of objects in the environment” and para 37, “The interference manager uses these results to decide on the operating parameters of the radio signal transmission and uses this information to create “scan control information” 516. The scan control information 516 includes transmit power of the radio signal; receive gain of the analog front end; and the time slot or the frequency band or both of the radio signal. The scan manager 504 uses this information and provides the “scan information” 513 to the radar transmit and receive processing block 501 which in turn creates the radio signal for transmission according to the “scan information” 513. The interference manager 503 may also decide that the current interference level is too high to provide reliable detection of targets and thus provides this information 515 to other parts in the overall system (for example the control and processing block 102 in FIG. 1). The interference manager 503 also provides control information 512 regarding what types of signal measurements are needed and at what intervals”)
Regarding claim 4, Ertan teaches the local controller is configured to select a frequency for the receiver pipeline and the transmitter pipeline from a plurality of frequencies (para 37, “The interference manager uses these results to decide on the operating parameters of the radio signal transmission and uses this information to create “scan control information” 516. The scan control information 516 includes transmit power of the radio signal; receive gain of the analog front end; and the time slot or the frequency band or both of the radio signal. The scan manager 504 uses this information and provides the “scan information” 513 to the radar transmit and receive processing block 501 which in turn creates the radio signal for transmission according to the “scan information” 513. The interference manager 503 may also decide that the current interference level is too high to provide reliable detection of targets and thus provides this information 515 to other parts in the overall system (for example the control and processing block 102 in FIG. 1). The interference manager 503 also provides control information 512 regarding what types of signal measurements are needed and at what intervals”).
Regarding claim 5, Ertan teaches the controller is configured to select a frequency and time slot that avoids interference from other radar systems as defined by a ping signal transmitted by the local controller (para 37, “The interference manager uses these results to decide on the operating parameters of the radio signal transmission and uses this information to create “scan control information” 516. The scan control information 516 includes transmit power of the radio signal; receive gain of the analog front end; and the time slot or the frequency band or both of the radio signal. The scan manager 504 uses this information and provides the “scan information” 513 to the radar transmit and receive processing block 501 which in turn creates the radio signal for transmission according to the “scan information” 513. The interference manager 503 may also decide that the current interference level is too high to provide reliable detection of targets and thus provides this information 515 to other parts in the overall system (for example the control and processing block 102 in FIG. 1). The interference manager 503 also provides control information 512 regarding what types of signal measurements are needed and at what intervals”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the central controller is configured to determine the coordination signal as defined by respective frequency subbands and time slots used by the plurality of other radar systems via their respective coordination signals, and wherein the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the controller whenever measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot (para 49 and 50). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include the central controller is configured to determine the coordination signal as defined by respective frequency subbands and time slots used by the plurality of other radar systems via their respective coordination signals, and wherein the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the controller whenever measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan (US 20210215820) in view of Zhou (US 20180352464).
Regarding claim 6, Ertan teaches a mobile vehicle comprising: one or more radar systems, wherein each radar system (para 37), one or more radar transmitters, one or more radar receivers (para 23), and a control processor configured to select frequency subbands and time slots for the one or more radar systems as defined by a coordination signal received from a central controller (para 26 and 37). Ertan does not teach the control processor is configured to report interference levels received by the one or more radar receivers in different frequency subbands and time slots to the central processor, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate frequency subbands and time slots to the one or more radar systems as defined by the reported interference levels such that the allocated frequency subbands and time slots for the one or more radar systems minimizes the interference levels.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou teaches the control processor is configured to report interference levels received by the one or more radar receivers in different frequency subbands and time slots to the central processor, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate frequency subbands and time slots to the one or more radar systems as defined by the reported interference levels such that the allocated frequency subbands and time slots for the one or more radar systems minimizes the interference levels (para 49). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include the control processor is configured to report interference levels received by the one or more radar receivers in different frequency subbands and time slots to the central processor, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate frequency subbands and time slots to the one or more radar systems as defined by the reported interference levels such that the allocated frequency subbands and time slots for the one or more radar systems minimizes the interference levels because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 8, Ertan teaches the one or more transmitters are configured to radars transmit with different power levels at different times as defined by the coordination signal (para 46, “The interference manager may also decide to reduce the transmit power of the radio signal if it may interfere with the operation of the other”).
Regarding claim 12, Ertan teaches the one or more radar system use FMCW signals (para 39).
Regarding claim 13, Ertan teaches the one or more radar system use PMCW signals (para 39).
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan in view of Zhou as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Melzer.
Regarding claim 7, Melzer teaches an interference measuring subsystem that measures the-interference levels in different frequency bands and time slots, wherein the interference is due to other radar systems (para 61 and 62) the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the control processor whenever the measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot (para 40, 45, and 46). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include an interference measuring subsystem that measures the-interference levels in different frequency bands and time slots, wherein the interference is due to other radar systems and the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the control processor whenever the measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches the central controller is configured to allocate the frequency subbands and time slots to the one or more radar systems of the mobile vehicle as further defined by a known position of the mobile vehicle with respect to known positions of the other mobile vehicles, wherein the one or more radar systems of the mobile vehicle are associated with the other radar systems of the other mobile vehicles (para 49). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include the central controller is configured to allocate the frequency subbands and time slots to the one or more radar systems of the mobile vehicle as further defined by a known position of the mobile vehicle with respect to known positions of the other mobile vehicles, wherein the one or more radar systems of the mobile vehicle are associated with the other radar systems of the other mobile vehicles because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 11, Melzer teaches the interference measuring system estimates the power level at different time slots and in different frequency subbands (para 61). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan to include the interference measuring system estimates the power level at different time slots and in different frequency subbands because it would allow the controller to know what frequencies are available.
Regarding claim 14, Ertan teaches the one or more radar system use FMCW signals (para 39).
Regarding claim 15, Ertan teaches the one or more radar system use PMCW signals (para 39).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan in view of Zhou as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fetterman (US 20180136312).
Regarding claim 9, Fetterman teaches not all the one or more radar transmitters transmit at the same time (para 41). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan in view of Melzer, and Zhou to include not all the one or more radar transmitters transmit at the same time because it would prevent the radars from interfering with each other.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan in view of Melzer, and Zhou as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Levy et al (US 20240019565).
Regarding claim 10, Levy teaches during a transmission time the one or more radar transmitters are configured to transmit a plurality of short pulses followed by short time periods where the one or more radar receivers listen for reflections (para 55, “a time-division-multiplexing multiple-input-multiple-output (TDM-MIMO) radar, each pulse may include multiple short sub-pulses transmitted in a plurality of MIMO cycles (or time slots)”). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan in view of Melzer, and Zhou to include during a transmission time the one or more radar transmitters are configured to transmit a plurality of short pulses followed by short time periods where the one or more radar receivers listen for reflections because it would help determine where an object was in the area.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2021063566) in view of Ertan and Melzer.
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches a warehouse system comprising: a plurality of mobile vehicles (para 32), each comprising one or more radars and a communication subsystem (para 3); and a central controller comprising a subsystem configured to communicate with and individually control the operation of each of the mobile vehicles with respect to each other (para 31 and fig 3). Smith does not teach the subsystem is configured to individually control the operation of each of the mobile vehicles by allocating time-frequency resources used by the one or more radars of the respective mobile devices via respective coordination signals, a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of mobile vehicles comprises an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle via a first coordination signal defined by the measured interference levels.
Regarding claim 16, Ertan teaches the subsystem is configured to individually control the operation of each of the mobile vehicles by allocating time-frequency resources used by the one or more radars of the respective mobile devices via respective coordination signals (para 37). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include the subsystem is configured to individually control the operation of each of the mobile vehicles by allocating time-frequency resources used by the one or more radars of the respective mobile devices via respective coordination signals because it is merely a substitution of a well known method to control the vehicles of Smith with the method to control object of Ertan to yield a predictable vehicle control system.
Regarding claim 16, Melzer teaches a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of mobile vehicles comprises an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle via a first coordination signal defined by the measured interference levels (para 40, 45, and 46). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of mobile vehicles comprises an interference measuring subsystem configured to measure interference levels, and wherein the central controller is configured to allocate time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle via a first coordination signal defined by the measured interference levels because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of smith for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 18, Ertan teaches the selected ones of the one or more radars of the mobile vehicles are configured to radars transmit with different power levels at different times (para 46, “The interference manager may also decide to reduce the transmit power of the radio signal if it may interfere with the operation of the other”). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include the selected ones of the one or more radars of the mobile vehicles are configured to radars transmit with different power levels at different times because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to control the vehicles of Smith with the method to control object of Ertan to yield a predictable vehicle control system.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Ertan and Melzer as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhou
Regarding claim 17, Melzer teaches the interference measuring subsystem is configured to measure interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, and wherein the interference measuring subsystem is configured to estimate the power level of interference in the different frequency subbands and time slots (para 37). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include the interference measuring subsystem is configured to measure interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, and wherein the interference measuring subsystem is configured to estimate the power level of interference in the different frequency subbands and time slots because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 17, Zhou teaches the central controller is configured to determine the coordination signal as defined by respective frequency subbands and time slots used by the plurality of other radar systems via their respective coordination signals, and wherein the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the controller whenever measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot (para 49 and 50). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include the central controller is configured to determine the coordination signal as defined by respective frequency subbands and time slots used by the plurality of other radar systems via their respective coordination signals, and wherein the central controller is configured to modify the coordination signal to the controller whenever measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Ertan and Melzer as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fetterman and Levy et al (US 20240019565).
Regarding claim 19, Fetterman teaches not all the one or more radar transmitters transmit at the same time (para 41). It would have been obvious to modify Smith in view of Ertan and Melzer to include not all the one or more radar transmitters transmit at the same time because it would prevent the radars from interfering with each other.
Regarding claim 19, Levy teaches during a transmission time at least one of the one or more radars transmits a plurality of short pulses followed by short time periods where the at least one of the one or more radars listens for reflections (para 55, “a time-division-multiplexing multiple-input-multiple-output (TDM-MIMO) radar, each pulse may include multiple short sub-pulses transmitted in a plurality of MIMO cycles (or time slots)”). It would have been obvious to modify Ertan in view of Melzer and Zhou to include during a transmission time at least one of the one or more radars transmits a plurality of short pulses followed by short time periods where the at least one of the one or more radars listens for reflections because it would help determine where an object was in the area.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2021063566) in view of Ertan, Melzer and Zhou.
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches method for controlling a plurality of associated mobile vehicles (para 3 and 22), transmitting, with a transmitter on each of the respective radar systems, radar signals; and processing, with a receiver on each of the respective radar systems, received signals to determine objects in the environment (para 28).
Regarding claim 20, Smith does not teach measuring, with an interference measuring subsystem of a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots, allocating respective time-frequency resources to each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles for controlling the operation of a respective radar system on each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles; interference between the radar systems of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles is minimized as defined by the allocation of respective time-frequency resources, and wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources defines a selection of respective frequency subbands and time slots for the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle is defined by the measured interference levels; and modifying the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle whenever the measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot.
Regarding claim 20, Ertan teaches allocating respective time-frequency resources to each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles for controlling the operation of a respective radar system on each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles (para 31 and fig 3). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include allocating respective time-frequency resources to each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles for controlling the operation of a respective radar system on each of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to control the vehicles of Smith with the method to control object of Ertan to yield a predictable vehicle control system.
Regarding claim 20, Melzer teaches measuring, with an interference measuring subsystem of a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots (para 40, 45, and 46). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include measuring, with an interference measuring subsystem of a first mobile vehicle of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, interference levels in different frequency subbands and time slots because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches measure interference between the radar systems of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles is minimized as defined by the allocation of respective time-frequency resources, and wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources defines a selection of respective frequency subbands and time slots for the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle is defined by the measured interference levels; and modifying the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle whenever the measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot (para 49). It would have been obvious to modify Smith to include measure interference between the radar systems of the plurality of associated mobile vehicles is minimized as defined by the allocation of respective time-frequency resources, and wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources defines a selection of respective frequency subbands and time slots for the plurality of associated mobile vehicles, wherein the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle is defined by the measured interference levels; and modifying the allocation of time-frequency resources to the first mobile vehicle whenever the measured interference levels are above a threshold for a current frequency subband and time slot because it is merely a substitution of a well-known transmit coordinator of Ertan for the transmit coordinator of Melzer to yield a predictable transmit coordinator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwesig et al 10459080 and Heilmann et al (20120050093).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 at 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights