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 statements submitted on 4/8/25 and 1/8/24 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1,13,17 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin)
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses a transmission method, comprising:
determining, by a communication device, a communication frame for transmitting a target signal (Page 2: Last Par.: Lines 1-3 and Page 3: Lines 1-4; The radar processes echo of transmitted signals during each frame period; The frame periods structured for radar signaling correspond to a communication frame for transmitting a signal), wherein the communication frame comprises a first portion for transmitting a target signal (Page 7: Lines 32-36; During each frame period, the radar transmits a millimeter-wave modulated signal toward the target; The frame period necessarily includes a portion in which the target signal is transmitted (first portion) and a second portion for receiving a sensing signal, the sensing signal is an echo for the target signal (Page 7: Lines 32-36; During each frame period, the radar receives the target echo signal; The frame period necessarily includes a portion in which the echo signal is received (second portion));
transmitting, by the communication device, the target signal within the first portion of the communication frame (Page 7: Lines 32-36; During each frame period, the radar transmits a millimeter-wave modulated signal toward the target; The frame period necessarily includes a portion in which the target signal is transmitted (first portion)); and
receiving, by the communication device, the sensing signal within the second portion of the communication frame (Page 7: Lines 32-36; During each frame period, the radar receives the target echo signal; The frame period necessarily includes a portion in which the echo signal is received (second portion)).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
A device capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
A device capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a non-transitory readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2,14,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Wei (WO 2021136016)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Qin discloses wherein the second portion (receiving the echo) is located after the first portion (transmitting a target signal) (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Qin does not disclose the sum of lengths of the first portion and the second portion is a fixed value.
Wei, however, discloses a communication frame of a fixed length (Page 11: Lines 4-8; A Time Division Duplexing TDD frame has a period of 5ms; TDD frame structures include downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) subframes corresponding to transmission and reception operations, respectively. Because the frame duration is fixed and the DL and UL subframes occupy defined portions of the frame, the combined lengths of the transmission and reception portions correspond to the fixed frame duration, thereby teaching the concept that the first portion for transmitting and the second portion for receiving have lengths whose sum is a fixed value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have combined the TDD frame structure of Wei, with the transmission and reception operations of the radar system of Qin, in order to coordinate transmit and receive operations and avoid interference between transmission and reception.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Wei (WO 2021136016) in further view of Xiong et al. (CN 114152923, hereinafter Xiong)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, Qin in view of Wei does not disclose wherein the length of the second portion is a length of a minimum sensing distance.
Xiong, however, discloses wherein the length of the second portion is a length of a minimum sensing distance (Page 7: Lines 26-28; The time window position of the radiation surface of the antenna is calibrated in the waveform by using the distance, d, of the test target; The time window is determined based on the distance between the antenna and target (
∆
t
=
2
d
c
), thereby the length of the sensing corresponds to the minimum sensing distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Wei to determine the receiving portion length based on sensing distance as taught by Xiong, because radar sensing systems commonly determine detection range based on signal propagation time, thereby allowing the receiving time window to correspond to a sensing distance.
Claims 4,15,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Wei (WO 2021136016) in further view of Li (US 20210051489)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, Qin in view of Wei disclose communication frames but does not disclose wherein beams used for a plurality of consecutive communication frames are not all the same or are all different.
Li, however, discloses wherein beams used for a plurality of consecutive frames are not all the same or all different (Par. 22; Multiple beam sweep frames are transmitted, where each frame corresponds to a different beam used during beam training).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Wei to vary the beams used across consecutive communication frames as taught by Li in order to perform beam sweeping during communication, thereby enabling the system to scan different spatial directions and improve beamforming and communication efficiency.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 18, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Wei (WO 2021136016) in further view of Li (US 20210051489) in further view of Yang et al. (CN 112383336, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, Qin in view of Wei in further view of Li does not disclose wherein the method further comprises:
transmitting target signals in the plurality of consecutive communication frames based on a same directional beam after a first position of a target object is determined, and updating the directional beam after it is determined that the target object has changed from the first position to a second position.
Yang, however, discloses wherein the method further comprises:
transmitting target signals in the plurality of consecutive communication frames based on a same directional beam after a first position of a target object is determined, and updating the directional beam after it is determined that the target object has changed from the first position to a second position (Page 2: Lines 42-46; The system, first uses the currently selected optimal beam to determine the current position of the flying object, then estimates the object’s next position and selects a new optimal beam for tracking based on the change in position; Tracking occurs at the current time and next time, thus the transmissions occur across consecutive communication frames where the beam is maintained until the target position changes then updated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Wei and Li to transmit target signals using the same directional beam after determining a first position of a target object and to update the directional beam when the target object moves to a second position as taught by Yang in order to enable efficient beam tracking of a moving object by maintaining the beam direction while the object remains at the same position and adjusting the beam when the object changes position, thereby improving tracking accuracy and reducing beam search overhead.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2021134716, hereinafter Chen)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Qin discloses wherein the second portion is located after the first portion (As detailed in the rejection of claim 1; Echo signals (second portion) necessarily occur after the target signals (first portion)) but does not disclose the length of the first portion is a fixed value.
Chen, however, discloses the length of the first portion is fixed (Page 6: Lines 10-14; The first type of chirp signal is transmitted within the first transmission time window of each transmission period; A transmission time window that repeats every transmission period indicates a predetermined fixed duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin such that the first portion of the communication frame has a fixed length as taught by Chen in order to provide predictable transmission timing and improve signal processing and synchronization.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2021134716, hereinafter Chen) in further view of Gunnam (CN 111492265)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Qin in view of Chen does not disclose wherein a length of the second portion is a length of a maximum sensing distance.
Gunnam, however, discloses wherein a length of the second portion is a length of a maximum sensing distance (Page 13: Lines 20-25; The radar system enables a measurement window after transmitting a pulse and controls the duration of this window to receive return signals associated with the transmitted pulse; Page 13: Lines 28-30; The measurement window is configured to collect return signals from objects ranging from nearby to the maximum range of the radar system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Chen such that the duration of the second portion corresponds to the maximum sensing distance as taught by Gunnam in order to ensure that the reception window remains open long enough to capture echo signals returning from distant targets.
Claims 8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Wei (WO 2021136016) in further view of Chu et al. (US 10554251, hereinafter Chu)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 2, Qin in view of Wei does not disclose wherein the method further comprises at least one of following: indicating, by the communication device, a position of the communication frame to a communication peer end; or
indicating, by the communication device, the length of the second portion to a communication peer end.
Chu, however, discloses wherein the method further comprises indicating, by the communication device, a position of the communication frame to a communication peer end (Col. 5: Lines 31-35; The access point sends a frame to the station that includes the timing synchronization function (TSF) time maintained by the access point; By transmitting the TSF time with the announcement frame, the access point communicates timing information that indicates when the communication frames occur in the network; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Wei to further indicate the position of a communication frame to a communication peer device using timing synchronization information as taught by Chu in order to synchronize communication timing between devices and enable the peer device to determine when communication frames occur for proper reception and coordination of communications.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 2, Qin in view of Wei does not disclose wherein the indicating a position of the communication frame to a communication peer end comprises at least one of following:
indicating, based on a first period, a start position of the communication frame; indicating, based on a first signal, the position of the communication frame; updating, based on the first signal, the position of the communication frame; or indicating, based on a first index, the position of the communication frame, wherein the first index corresponds to the position of the communication frame in a position index table, the position index table comprises at least one second index, different indexes correspond to different positions, and the first index is one of the at least one second index; or wherein the indicating the length of the second portion to a communication peer end comprises at least one of following: directly indicating the length of the second portion; indicating, based on a third index, the length of the second portion, wherein the third index corresponds to the length of the second portion in a time-length index table, the time-length index table comprises at least one fourth index, different fourth indexes correspond to different lengths, and the third index is one of the at least one fourth index; or directly indicating the number of sample points of a data portion of the target signal.
Chu, however, discloses wherein the indicating a position of the communication frame to a communication peer end comprises indicating, based on a first signal, the position of the communication frame (Col. 5: Lines 31-35; The access point sends a frame to the station that includes the timing synchronization function (TSF) time maintained by the access point; The announcement frame acts as a signal conveying timing information, which allows the station to determine when communication frames occur, thereby indicating the position of the communication frame based on a signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Wei to indicate the position of a communication frame based on a signal as taught by Chu in order to synchronize communication timing between devices and enable the communication peer device to determine when communication frames occur for proper reception and coordination of communications.
Claim 10 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in further view of Mercier (US 20200134852)
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Qin does not disclose wherein the determining a communication frame for transmitting a target signal further comprises:
determining a minimum sensing distance of the communication device; and
based on the minimum sensing distance, adjusting a transmission time of the target signal so that the length of the first portion is less than or equal to the minimum sensing distance.
Mercier, however, discloses wherein the determining a communication frame for transmitting a target signal further comprises:
determining a minimum sensing distance of the communication device (Par. 67: Lines 2-6; The radar system determines its minimum detectable range based on the selected pulse width of the transmitted signal); and
based on the minimum sensing distance, adjusting a transmission time of the target signal (Par. 67: Lines 2-6; The duration of the transmitted radar pulse controls the minimum detection distance of the radar system; Since the pulse width represents the transmission time of the radar signal, adjusting the pulse width changes the minimum sensing distance, thereby showing that transmission timing is adjusted based on the sensing distance) so that the length of the first portion is less than or equal to the minimum sensing distance (Par. 67: Lines 6-9; Increasing the pulse width increases the blind range of the radar system; Because the blind range (minimum sensing distance) increases as the transmission pulse width increases, the radar transmission duration determines a time region where signals cannot be detected, corresponding to the first portion being limited by the minimum sensing distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin to determine a minimum sensing distance and adjust the transmission time of the target signal based on the minimum sensing distance as taught by Mercier, because radar and sensing systems commonly control transmission timing parameters, such as pulse width, to define minimum detection range and avoid receiving signals during periods in which echoes cannot yet be reliably detected, thereby improving detection accuracy and system performance.
Claims 11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Parker (US 9746549)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Qin does not disclose wherein the method further comprises:
determining at least one subsequence of the echo signal, wherein a subsequence comprises at least two consecutive data sample points in the echo signal; and performing detection on a target subsequence in the at least one subsequence.
Parker, however, discloses determining at least one subsequence of the echo signal, wherein a subsequence comprises at least two consecutive data sample points in the echo signal (Col. 3: Lines 16-18; The radar system samples received echo signals and organizes the sampled data into range bins; A range bin represents a group of sampled echo data points corresponding to reflections from a particular distance. Since the range bin is formed from sampled echo signals, it contains multiple consecutive data points); and performing detection on a target subsequence in the at least one subsequence (Col. 3: Lines 20-26; The sampled echo signal data organized into range bins is processed to generate a range-Doppler map; Processing the sampled echo signal data associated with each range bin in the range-Doppler map allows the radar system to analyze and detect objects at specific distances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin to determine subsequences of the echo signal and perform detection on a target subsequence as taught by Parker in order to enable radar signal processing using sampled echo signal data grouped into range bins for reliable object detection. Incorporating the subsequence-based detection of Parker into the radar communication method of Qin would have been a predictable use of known radar signal processing techniques to analyze sampled echo signal data and detect targets based on reflections corresponding to specific ranges.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11, Qin does not disclose wherein the performing detection on a target subsequence in the at least one subsequence comprises:
performing matched filtering calculation on the at least one subsequence; and determining the target subsequence based on a result of the matched filtering calculation; or
the performing detection on a target subsequence in the at least one subsequence comprises at least one of the following:
determining a detection order for the target subsequence; or
determining a detection threshold, and determining the target subsequence based on the detection threshold.
Parker, however, discloses performing detection on a target subsequence in the at least one subsequence (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11). Parker further discloses determining a detection threshold, and determining the target subsequence based on the detection threshold (Col. 10: Lines 15-17; The radar system determines a threshold value and declares the presence of a target when the processed radar signal data exceeds the threshold; The CFAR detection circuit analyzes a cell under test in the range-Doppler map, which corresponds to the subsequence of radar echo data being evaluated for the presence of a target; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin to determine whether a target is present in the subsequences of the echo signal using a threshold-based detection technique as taught by Parker in order to reliably distinguish radar target returns from background noise, clutter, and interference. Incorporating the CFAR threshold detection scheme of Parker into the radar processing method of Qin would have been a predictable use of known radar signal processing techniques to analyze sampled echo signal data and identify target reflections based on a comparison of the signal strength to an adaptive detection threshold.
Claims 16,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 109358322, hereinafter Qin) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2021134716, hereinafter Chen) in further view of Gunnam (CN 111492265)
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 13, Qin discloses wherein the second portion is located after the first portion (As detailed in the rejection of claim 1; Echo signals (second portion) necessarily occur after the target signals (first portion)) but does not disclose the length of the first portion is a fixed value; wherein a length of the second portion is a length of a maximum sensing distance.
Chen, however, discloses the length of the first portion is a fixed value (Page 6: Lines 10-14; The first type of chirp signal is transmitted within the first transmission time window of each transmission period; A transmission time window that repeats every transmission period indicates a predetermined fixed duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin to include a first portion having a fixed length as taught by Chen, because using a predetermined transmission time window that repeats each transmission period provides predictable signal timing and facilitates consistent signal transmission and processing in radar and sensing systems.
Qin in view of Chen does not disclose wherein a length of the second portion is a length of a maximum sensing distance.
Gunnam, however, discloses wherein a length of the second portion is a length of a maximum sensing distance (Page 13: Lines 20-25; The radar system enables a measurement window after transmitting a pulse and controls the duration of this window to receive return signals associated with the transmitted pulse; Page 13: Lines 28-30; The measurement window is configured to collect return signals from objects ranging from nearby to the maximum range of the radar system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qin in view of Chen to further configure the second portion to have a length corresponding to a maximum sensing distance as taught by Gunnam, because radar systems commonly define a measurement or receive window based on the maximum detection range so that return signals from targets within the entire detectable range can be received and processed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648