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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected under 35 CFR 1.83 because the numerals associated with the boxes or circles are not indicative as to what said symbol represents. Applicant is required to label, in words, the function of said boxes, such that a reader would be appraised of their function without having to read the entire specification in order to figure it out. For example, according to the specification, element(s) 108 is/are a “scattering object”, therefore it is suggested that applicant labels box 108 “scattering object.”
Figure 2 is objected to under 35 CFR 1.83 because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (e.g., course time synchronization 1050), in order to facilitate a rapid understanding of the figure, without recurring to searching the text.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “A device configured implementing the method of claim 1” should read “A device configured for implementing the method of claim 1” or the like in order to ensure grammatical consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 6-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “determining a respective refined position for each scattering object of said plurality of scattering objects through minimizing a function” which is indefinite, because the nature of the minimizing function, how it is carried out, and what is being minimized by the minimizing function is unclear. The claim merely mentions certain parameters one which the minimizing function depends, and does not provide sufficient detail or context.
Claim 4 recites “a difference between a position parameter determined through said calculating and a corresponding free parameter to be determined” which is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear due to the fact that the corresponding free parameter is undetermined and otherwise undefined by the claim. A POSITA would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim 6 recites “determining, through said minimizing, said position and orientation information of said radar transmitter in relation to said radar receiver” which is indefinite, because the position and orientation of the transmitter and receiver are already known from claim 1 as required by the calculating step, causing claim 6 to be contradictory. Claim 7 is likewise rejected for the recitation of “determining, through said minimizing, an offset of said angle of departure.”
Claim 8 recites “said minimizing comprising performing said determining” which is indefinite, because “said determining” lacks proper antecedent basis in this context. There are several “determining” steps already recited in the dependency chain, and it is unclear which is being referred to.
Claim 13 recites “wherein said scattering object, or at least one of a plurality of scattering objects, is an active or a passive reflecting aperture” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, “a plurality of scattering objects” lacks proper antecedent basis, because it is not clear if the plurality of scattering objects are related to the method in any way, given that claim 1 only refers to a single scattering object. Second, it is unclear what Applicant means by “reflecting aperture” due to the fact that it is not a standard term in the art. Aperture generally refers to the opening used to collect radar data. It is unclear how the entirety of the scattering object could be an opening, and further how such an opening would possibly act to scatter radar signals.
Claim 14 recites “A device configured implementing the method of claim 1” which is indefinite as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: 1) a means for receiving a radar signal that was captured by a radar receiver, 2) a means for processing said radar signal, and 3) a means for calculating the position of the scattering object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al. (US 2024/0183974 A1), hereinafter Shrestha.
Regarding claim 1, Shrestha discloses a method for use in radar processing (abstract, regarding methods for determining a location of an object using radio measurement observations in a radio network), comprising:
processing a radar signal transmitted from a radar transceiver, scattered by a scattering object and captured by a radar receiver (para. [0014], regarding a method that can be used to map the location of scatterers in and around a radio propagation environment between a wireless device), said processing comprising determining, for said scattering object:
a direction of departure from a radar transmitter to said scattering object (para. [0015], regarding obtaining information comprising: (1) a first angle-of-arrival parameter and/or first angle-of-departure parameter corresponding to a non-primary propagation path of a radio signal transmitted between a first wireless device and a second wireless device); and
a direction of arrival at said radar receiver from said scattering object (see again para. [0015]); and
calculating a position of said scattering object based on:
said direction of arrival;
said direction of departure; and
predetermined position and orientation information of said radar transmitter in relation to said radar receiver (para. [0015], regarding the method further comprises estimating a location for an object other than the first and second wireless devices, based on the obtained information; as shown in fig. 3),
whereby said calculating of said position of said scattering object is unbiased by a time synchronization offset between said radar transmitter and said radar receiver (see paras. [0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein said calculating of said position of the scattering object comprises determining a bistatic range between said radar transmitter, said scattering object, and said radar receiver, whereby said bistatic range is unbiased by said time synchronization offset (as shown in fig. 3; see again para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: performing said calculating for a plurality of scattering objects (see para. [0039]); determining a respective refined position for each scattering object of said plurality of scattering objects through minimizing a non-linear least squares problem (para. [0065], regarding the accuracy of a least squares solution) involving, for each scattering object and for a plurality of position parameters pertaining to said scattering object, a difference between a position parameter determined through said calculating and a corresponding free parameter to be determined, said free parameter representing said refined position (para. [0068], regarding the network node may also have access to other sources of information about the environment, such as 3D maps of buildings, etc; this additional information may be used to error-check or refine the estimations of object positions as determined using the techniques described above; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 5, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses wherein said position parameters comprise said direction of arrival; said direction of departure; and said bistatic range between said radar transmitter, said scattering object, and said radar receiver (as shown in fig. 3; para. [0036], regarding RAT-based positioning techniques for determining the position of a UE are well known; some of these rely on timing measurements, and in particular on the time-of-arrival (ToA) of the first path via which the radio signal from the transmitter (Tx) reaches the receiver (Rx) for range estimation; such range estimation can then be combined with angular measurements or a collection of other range estimates (ranges between a particular UE and multiple BSs) can be used for multilateration to estimate the UE position; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 6, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses the invention further comprising determining, through said minimizing, position and orientation information of said radar transmitter in relation to said radar receiver (see again para. [0015] and fig. 3; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 7, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses the invention further comprising determining, through said minimizing, an offset of said direction of departure (see again para. [0015] and fig. 3; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 12, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of said radar receiver and said radar transmitter is comprised in a wireless communication system (as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein said scattering object, or at least one of a plurality of scattering objects, is an active or a passive reflecting aperture (as shown in fig. 3; see related rejections under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 14, Shrestha discloses a device configured implementing the method of claim 1 (para. [0082], regarding the network node (or another network node) receives the measurements performed by the UE, as discussed in connection with FIG. 10, and calculates a UE position and scatterer position; fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Shrestha discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer or processor, causes the computer or processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (see again para. [0082]; Examiner notes that the claimed features are inherent given the described capabilities of the network node in para. [0082]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US 2024/0183974 A1), hereinafter Shrestha, in view of Gulati et al. (US 2022/0291325 A1), hereinafter Gulati.
Regarding claim 3, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein said processing of said radar signal further comprises:
determining a bistatic range between said radar transmitter, said scattering object, and said radar receiver (as shown in fig. 3, see para. [0050]).
Shrestha does not appear to specifically disclose whereby said range is biased by said time synchronization offset; and said method further comprises: estimating said time synchronization offset based on the range biased by said time synchronization offset, and the range unbiased by said time synchronization offset.
However, Gulati is in the field of determining timing offsets between wireless devices (abstract) and teaches whereby said range is biased by said time synchronization offset; and said method further comprises: estimating said time synchronization offset based on the range biased by said time synchronization offset, and the range unbiased by said time synchronization offset (para. [0063], regarding the first wireless device 602 may know the location of other device through GPS, vehicle to anything (V2X), or through radar ranging/tracking; the first wireless device 602 may estimate a timing offset, or may simultaneously compensate timing offsets for other target; fig. 6B; see paras. [0062-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Shrestha such that said range is biased by said time synchronization offset; and said method further comprises: estimating said time synchronization offset based on the range biased by said time synchronization offset, and the range unbiased by said time synchronization offset as taught by Gulati, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the position calculation is accurate given a certain distance between the radar transmitter and receiver (see Gulati, paras. [0062-0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention further comprising adjusting a time synchronization between said radar transmitter and said radar receiver based on the estimated time synchronization offset.
However, Gulati teaches adjusting a time synchronization between said radar transmitter and said radar receiver based on the estimated time synchronization offset (para. [0077], regarding the method may be performed to determine a timing offset between a first wireless device and a second wireless device in order to synchronize timing between the first wireless device and the second wireless device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Shrestha to include adjusting a time synchronization between said radar transmitter and said radar receiver based on the estimated time synchronization offset as taught by Gulati, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the position calculation is accurate given a certain distance between the radar transmitter and receiver (see Gulati, para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein said radar signal is OFDM modulated.
However, Gulati teaches wherein said radar signal is OFDM modulated (para. [0047], regarding if multiple spatial streams are destined for the wireless device 350, they may be combined by the RX processor 356 into a single stream, such as an OFDM symbol stream).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Shrestha such that said radar signal is OFDM modulated as taught by Gulati, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the radar signal is compatible with commonly used transmission equipment and multiplexing schemes.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US 2024/0183974 A1), hereinafter Shrestha.
Regarding claim 8, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose said minimizing comprising performing said determining for a hypothesis grid of possible transmitter locations and/or offsets of said direction of departure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that said minimizing comprising performing said determining for a hypothesis grid of possible transmitter locations and/or offsets of said direction of departure, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing a grid of possible locations/offsets merely involved duplicating the minimizing procedure at a highly abstract level, which is obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Shrestha discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention further comprising, before said calculating, performing a coarse synchronization between said radar transmitter and said radar receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform a coarse synchronization prior to performing a final synchronization, since the equivalence of coarse and fine synchronizations for their use in the location determination art and the selection of any known equivalents to coarse synchronizations would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to perform a low power estimate in order to get the calculations in the right ballpark prior to calculation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
The rejection of claims 1-3 under §112(b) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments and the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8) that claim 4 as amended is not indefinite. Examiner disagrees as detailed hereinabove. Specifically, Examiner notes that the amendments to claim 4 do not sufficiently clarify the metes and bounds of “a corresponding free parameter to be determined” since it appears to attempt to encompass a step of determining the free parameter that would necessarily fall outside the scope of the claim.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8) that claims 6-7 as amended are not indefinite. Examiner disagrees as detailed hereinabove. Specifically, Examiner notes that claims 6-7 appear to be reciting a new step of determining the position and orientation information as opposed to further limiting a previously recited step, and it would be indefinite to add such a new step following the completion of the method of claim 5, from which claims 6-7 depend.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8) that claim 8 as amended is not indefinite. Examiner disagrees as detailed hereinabove. Despite Applicant’s intention, there still exists another determining step in claim 1, from which claims 4 and 8 depend, that could create confusion as to the meaning of claim 8.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8) that claim 13 as amended is not indefinite. Examiner disagrees as detailed hereinabove. It is unclear to provide antecedent basis for a “plurality of scattering objects” that are completely unrelated to the radar signal of claim 1, and thus are apparently outside the scope of the claim. In other words, the radar signal of claim 1 was only scattered by “a scattering object” alone.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 9) that Shrestha fails to anticipate claim 1 as amended because Shrestha does not teach processing a radar signal, and instead relates to a radio communications network. Examiner disagrees. Shrestha relates specifically to “determining a location of an object using radio measurement observations in a radio network” which is well-supported by the literal definition of radar (radio detection and ranging). Just because Shrestha does not specifically mention the word “radar” does not mean that Shrestha not employing radar and radar principles. See, e.g., paras. [0050-0053] which describe the method by which the locations of scatters are calculated, which requires details of direction of departure/arrival of the radio signal as well as positions.
Therefore, claim 1 remains rejected under §102, as do dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 12-15, there being no curable deficiencies in the rejections as detailed above and no specific arguments on the merits presented for consideration by Applicant. Likewise, claims 3 and 8-11 remain rejected under §103 as detailed hereinabove.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights