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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “host machine” in at least claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “host machine” in at least claim 1, in connection with the disclosure of the invention and specifically the drawings. Examiner notes that the term “host machine” is only used in para. [0079] which is merely claim 1 verbatim. This usage is insufficient to provide antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “the plurality of radars is configured to operate on a same frequencies” lacks proper grammar.
The recitation “the plurality of radars is further configured to operate based a timing multiplexing scheme” should read “the plurality of radars is further configured to operate based on a timing multiplexing scheme” or the like in order to increase 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 1-24 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 1 recites “at least two radars of the plurality of radars being configured or arranged to provide detection in different directions and/or to have only partial overlap of coverage” which is indefinite because it implies the existence of an embodiment of the invention where the two radars provide partial overlap of coverage but do not provide detection in different directions. It would appear to be logically impossible for two radars to only partially overlap, but not provide detection in different directions. However, the nature of the instant and/or recitation implies mutual exclusivity between the two alternatives in least one embodiment of the invention, which is incorrect in this instance. The claim should be amended to clarify that two radars that are only partially overlapped will always be arranged to provide detection in different directions. Dependent claims 2-24 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 8 recites “each radar of the plurality of radars is positioned and/or is configured to scan in a different direction” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what is the difference between being positioned to scan in a different direction, and being configured to scan in a different direction. Logic would suggest that “A and/or B” statements do not make sense when there is no practicable or operable difference between A and B.
Claim 17 recites “each radar weighs less than 1.5 lbs” which is indefinite, because the recitation claims a range that includes zero pounds which is unclear. Claim 18 is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the one or more circuits are configured to process at least some of the data using artificial intelligence (AI) based processing” which is indefinite, because it is unclear whether, and to what extent, said recitation serves to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 20 depends. For claim 20 to further limit claim 1, the invention in claim 1 must include embodiments where the one or more circuits are not configured to process data using AI. It is unclear from Applicant’s disclosure whether any of Applicant’s disclosed circuits, or even any circuits in general, are somehow fundamentally incapable of processing data using AI.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the autonomous detection and avoidance (DAA) engine is configured for processing sensor data and determining course of action based on the processing of sensor data” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the DAA engine lacks proper antecedent basis, but would have antecedent basis is claim 24 depended from claim 23. Second, the DAA engine is not actually an element of the invention. Instead, per claim 23, the circuit is merely configured to implement the DAA engine, which is essentially just a computer program. It is unclear whether, and to what extent, a limitation of a computer program, and particularly a computer program that lies outside the scope of the claimed invention, serves to further limit the subject matter of claim 22, from which claim 24 depends.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dvorecki et al. (US 2024/0053467 A1), hereinafter Dvorecki.
Regarding claim 1, Dvorecki discloses a system (abstract, regarding a radar system) comprising:
a plurality of radars (para. [0194], regarding a vehicle 100 may include a plurality of radars, for example, a plurality of radar frontends 804; fig. 8), wherein:
each radar of the plurality of radars is configured to provide radar measurement capabilities (para. [0197], regarding the plurality of radar frontends 804 may be implemented as high-resolution radars, which may operate in the 76-81 GHz band to support an Autonomous Vehicle functionality of vehicle 100),
each radar of the plurality of radars is configured to provide at least a partial field of view coverage (para. [0196], regarding the plurality of front ends 804 may be implemented such that a combination of FOVs of the plurality of radar frontends 804 may cover a FOV of about 360 degrees around the vehicle 100),
the plurality of radars is configured or arranged to provide an extended coverage detection area based on at least two radars of the plurality of radars being configured or arranged to provide detection in different directions and/or to have only partial overlap of coverage (para. [0221], regarding the first and second radar FOVs may partially overlap); and
a host machine comprising one or more circuits (radar processor 934; fig. 9),
wherein the host machine is connected to each radar of the plurality of radars via a corresponding data connection (para. [0222], regarding radar device 900 may include a radar processor 934 configured to determine radar synchronization information to synchronize between the first radar 920 and the second radar 940; fig. 9); and
wherein the one or more circuits are configured to:
manage or control operation of the plurality of radars (para. [0236], regarding radar processor 934 may be configured to control a radar device of radar devices 920 and/or 940 to transmit a Tx radar signal, and to control both radar devices 920 and 940 to receive Rx signals based on the Tx radar signals);
process radar measurements obtained via the plurality of radars (para. [0237], regarding radar processor 934 may measure RCSs of a target, e.g., target 950, which is in an overlap region, for example, using Rx signals received from the same target at both radar devices 920 and 940); and
provide or support detection related functions based at least in part on the processing of the radar measurements (para. [0223], regarding radar processor 934 may be configured to generate radar information 953 corresponding to a target 950, for example, based at least on the radar synchronization information, a Tx radar signal 925 transmitted by the first radar 920, a first Rx signal 926 received by the first radar 920 based on the Tx radar signal 925, and a second Rx signal 945 received by the second radar 940 based on the Tx signal 925).
Regarding claim 2, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars is configured to collectively provide expanded coverage in at least one plane (as shown in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars is configured to collectively provide a full (360°) field of view coverage in the azimuth (see again para. [0196]).
Regarding claim 4, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 3, and further discloses wherein at least one radar is configured to provide less than a full field of view, with the at least one radar configured to scan an area of interest to ensure or enable providing the full (360°) field of view coverage in the azimuth (as shown in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars comprises four radars (para. [0198], regarding at least 6 radars may be utilized, for example, to provide a 360 degrees FOV for the AV) with each radar configured to provide at least 90° field of view in the azimuth (as shown in fig. 10), and with the four radars positioned in different directions to ensure or enable providing the full (360°) field of view coverage in the azimuth (see again para. [0198]).
Regarding claim 6, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars comprises three radars (see again para. [0198]) with each radar configured to provide at least 120° field of view in the azimuth (as shown in fig. 10), and with the three radars positioned in different directions to ensure or enable providing the full (360°) field of view coverage in the azimuth (see again para. [0198]).
Regarding claim 8, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each radar of the plurality of radars is positioned and/or is configured to scan in a different direction to increase the field of view coverage (as shown in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein managing or controlling operation of the plurality of radars comprises prioritization of radars based on prioritization criteria that comprise one or more of location on system and view coverage relative to a direction of travel of the system (as shown in fig. 10; Examiner notes that the mere intent to manage or control operation of the plurality radars in a particular manner does not structurally distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 10, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars is configured to operate simultaneously (as shown in fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars is configured to operate on different frequencies, to enable simultaneous operation of the plurality of radars (para. [0430], regarding a same Tx pattern, e.g., chirps, for example, over a same frequency carrier signal or different frequency carrier signals, may be applied to the Tx radar signal 1525 propagating via the synchronization channel 1530 and the Tx radar signal 1525 transmitted by the plurality of Tx antennas 1522).
Regarding claim 12, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of radars is configured to operate on a same frequencies (see again para. [0430]), and wherein the plurality of radars is further configured to operate based a timing multiplexing scheme (para. [0126], regarding radio transmit signal 105 may be transmitted according to technologies such as, for example, Frequency-Modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar, Phase-Modulated Continuous Wave (PMCW) radar, Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) radar, and/or any other type of radar technology, which may support determination of range, velocity, and/or direction).
Regarding claim 13, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein, when the plurality of radars is configured to operate based a timing multiplexing scheme, at least two radars are configured to operate at different times while using a same frequency for radar scanning (see again paras. [0430] and [0126]; Examiner notes that the mere intent to operate at least two radars at different times while using the same frequency does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 14, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the at least two radars are configured to operate at different times based on time synchronization signals (para. [0222], regarding radar device 900 may include a radar processor 934 configured to determine radar synchronization information to synchronize between the first radar 920 and the second radar 940; fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one radar comprises or uses one or more electronically steerable antennas (para. [0071], regarding radar device 101 may be implemented as any other type of radar, for example, an Electronic Beam Steering radar, a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), adaptive and/or cognitive radars that change their transmission according to the environment and/or ego state, a reflect array radar, or the like).
Regarding claim 16, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one radar is a frequency-modulated continuous- wave (FMCW) radar (see again para. [0126]).
Regarding claim 19, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each radar of the plurality of radars is configured to, when providing the radar measurement, emit a radio signal, receive a return signal from a target, and determine parameters related to the target (as shown in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more circuits are configured to process at least some of the data using artificial intelligence (AI) based processing (Examiner notes that the mere intent to process data using AI does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 21, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least a portion of the system is embedded in or otherwise associated with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (para. [0041], regarding the vehicle may be a drone), and wherein the UAV is configured to utilize information based on the detection related functions during operation of the UAV (see again figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 22, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more circuits are configured to provide avoidance related functions based at least in part on the data from the plurality of radars (paras. [0066-0067], regarding radar device 101 may be configured to detect, and/or sense, one or more objects, which are located in a vicinity of the vehicle 100, and to provide one or more parameters, attributes, and/or information with respect to the objects, where the objects may include other vehicles; pedestrians; traffic signs; traffic lights; roads, road elements; see also para. [0089], regarding vehicle controller 108 may control the steering system, the braking system, and/or any other vehicular systems of vehicle 100, for example, based on the information from radar device 101).
Regarding claim 23, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 22, and further discloses wherein the one or more circuits are configured to implement an autonomous detection and avoidance (DAA) engine for use in providing one or both of the detection related functions and the avoidance related functions (para. [0082], regarding radar processor 104 may be configured to provide the radar information to a vehicle controller 108 of the vehicle 100, e.g., for autonomous driving of the vehicle 100; see also paras. [0066-0067] and para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 24, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 22, and further discloses wherein the autonomous detection and avoidance (DAA) engine is configured for processing sensor data and determining course of action based on the processing of sensor data (see again paras. [0082] and [0089]; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove)).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 2024/0053467 A1), hereinafter Dvorecki, in view of Venkatachalam et al. (US 2011/0102249 A1), hereinafter Venkatachalam.
Regarding claim 7, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 2, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one radar is configured to scan in a direction other than the one plane.
However, Venkatachalam is in the field of networked radars (abstract) and teaches wherein at least one radar is configured to scan in a direction other than the one plane (as shown in fig. 3).
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 Dvorecki such that at least one radar is configured to scan in a direction other than the one plane as taught by Venkatachalam, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the radars are able to detect object along a height dimension (see again Venkatachalam, fig. 3).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 2024/0053467 A1), hereinafter Dvorecki.
Regarding claim 17, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each radar weighs less than 1.5 lbs.
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 each radar weighs less than 1.5 lbs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The purpose would be to optimize the size and shape of the radar for its intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Dvorecki discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each radar is configured to consume less 30 watts during active operation.
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 each radar is configured to consume less 30 watts during active operation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The purpose would be to optimize the energy consumption of the radar for its intended use.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
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