Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/406,594

FLEET-INTERNAL INTERFERENCE MITIGATION WITH RADAR-UNIQUE PHASE CODES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 08, 2024
Examiner
RAYNAL, ASHLEY BROWN
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
GM Cruise Holdings LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
28 granted / 36 resolved
+25.8% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Amendment The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 03/13/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 16 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 03/13/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 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. 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 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US-20230393256-A1; hereinafter Ma) in view of Kageme et al. (US-20200011983-A1; hereinafter Kageme). Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses [Note: what Ma fails to disclose is strike-through] A method performed by a radar system (see at least Fig. 9, radar transceiver 900), the method comprising: generating a phase-shifted radar signal (see at least [0099]; “In addition, phase shift graph 606 conveys the different phase shifts implemented according to the sequence of phase codes (c={1, −1, 1, −1}) across pulses conveyed in code sequence 602. The example phase code represents a sequence of angles, respectively 0 degrees, 180 degrees, 0 degrees, and 180 degrees and can be described as having 2 alphabets ({0, 180})”) using a unique phase code that is commonly assigned (see at least [0003]; “With each vehicle radar system operating according to a unique code sequence received from the planning system, interference between the radar systems is further mitigated.”) to all transmitters included in the radar system (see at least Fig. 9; phase code sequence C from code book 906 is communicated to all transmitters 1-4. See also [0105]; “In addition, each transmit antenna 904 includes a transmit phase shifter to transmit phase shift of emitted signals based on the code sequence specified by the code book 906.”); transmitting the phase-shifted radar signal from transmit antennas (see at least [0098]; “A vehicle radar system or another type of emitter may transmit signals according to pulse chain 600, which involves fast and slow-time modulation in ramp direction and phase shifts on a pulse-to-pulse basis, respectively.” See also multiple transmit antennas TX1 – TX4 in Fig. 9); receiving a radar return at receive antennas (see at least [0116]; “Block 1104 of method 1100 involves receiving radar reflections from the environment. The radar unit may include one or multiple reception antennas.”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation prior to Doppler analysis (see at least [0105]; “As further shown in FIG. 9, demodulator 908 can further demodulate received signals based on the spatial code conveyed in code book 906.” See also Fig. 9, where demodulator 908 precedes Doppler FFT.); and outputting an un-shifted processed radar signal (see at least Fig. 9, output of block diagram is “Range Doppler Image”). However, Ma does not explicitly give the process for demodulation and does not explicitly teach performing phase compensation by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value. Ma discloses a fleet-internal interference mitigation system for radar, and Kageme is directed to a radar device using phase codes. Kageme teaches: A method performed by a radar system (see at least [0012]; “FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing a radar apparatus according to a first embodiment of the present invention.”), the method comprising: generating a phase-shifted signal using a unique phase code that is assigned to the transmitter (see at least Fig. 7, block ST2; “Modulation cod generator generates modulation code by cyclically shifting cyclic code by cyclic shift amount that differs for each transmission radar”. See also block ST3; “Transmitter generates transmission RF signal by multiplying local oscillation signal by modulation code”.); transmitting the phase-shifted signal (see at least Fig. 7, block ST4; “Transmission RF signal is emitted from antenna into air”); receiving a return (see at least Fig. 11, block ST11; “Antenna receives reception RF signal”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation (see at least Fig. 13, block ST22; “Code demodulating unit performs code demodulation on frequency domain signal, using modulation codes for respective transmission radars”) prior to Doppler analysis (see at least [0175]; “When the target to be observed is assumed to be a moving target, the first integration unit 44 performs hit-direction Discrete Fourier Transform on the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) after code-demodulation, output from the code demodulating unit 42 as shown in expression (19) shown below, to coherently integrate the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) (step ST23 in FIG. 13).”) by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value in order to remove the phase shift (see at least [0151]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code demodulating unit 42 multiplies the code “1 1 −1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k) as a demodulation code by the acquired modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 1 −1”, to code-demodulate the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k).”) and outputting an un-shifted processed signal (see at least [0152]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code “1 −1 1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k), which is a demodulation code, and the modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 −1 1” are in phase with each other between hits. Accordingly, the code after the demodulation is “1 1 1”, and it is possible to perform coherent integration.”). Both Ma and Kageme use phase codes to shift the phase of transmitted signal, and undo the phase shift in the received signal. Both use this technique to screen out signals from other transmitters. Ma does not give the details of how the modulation and demodulation are mathematically performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kageme’s scheme for implementing phase codes, which involves multiplying by a phase compensation value, in the system of Ma. Such a modification would be obvious and have a reasonable expectation of success due to the similarities of the two systems. Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the method of claim 1. Ma further teaches: further comprising statically assigning the unique phase code to the transmitters during at least one of: radar system assembly; flashing of firmware installed in the radar system; or startup of the radar system (see at least [0108]; “As an example, each vehicle 1002A-1002C may provide a unique identifier referred to herein as a seed to system 1000 via wireless communication 1016. The seed provides information about the vehicle for use by frequency planner 1008. For instance, the seed may indicate a status of the vehicle, a location and a pose of the vehicle, a current or future route of the vehicle, and/or a type of vehicle radar system (or a general sensor system), among other information. In some implementations, each vehicle 1002A-1002C may provide the seed to frequency planner 1008 upon a transition from an inactive state (e.g., vehicle off or not navigating) to an active state (e.g., power on or initiation of a route)…In return, frequency planner 1008 may use the seeds and assign a set of generated waveform diversity codes (e.g., chirp, phase and spatial) that enable waveform diversity and reduce interference.”). Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the method of claim 1. Ma further teaches: further comprising periodically assigning the unique phase code to the transmitters by cycling through phase codes in a phase code dictionary (see at least Fig. 10A, code database 1012. See also [0108] – [0109]; “In particular, frequency planner 1008 may use code database 1012 and code generator 1014 to provide diverse code sequences to vehicles 1002A-1002C… Code generator 1014 then inputs random codes 1024 into orthogonal coder 1026, which is configured to output orthogonal code sequences 1028 that can be stored in code database 1012…Frequency planner 1008 uses orthogonal code sequences 1028 to assign code sequences to vehicles that mitigate interference.”). Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the method of claim 1. Ma further teaches: further comprising assigning the unique phase code to the transmitters by selecting a unique phase code per frame based on at least one of external logic (see at least Fig. 10A and [0109]; “Frequency planner 1008 uses orthogonal code sequences 1028 to assign code sequences to vehicles that mitigate interference.”) and internal logic. Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the method of claim 5. Ma further teaches: wherein the external logic is provided by at least one of: a remote fleet management system (see at least Fig. 10A, data center 1004 and frequency planner 1008. See also [0108]; “In some examples, frequency planner 1008 may periodically transmit new diverse code sequences to vehicles 1002A-1002C, which suppresses interference.”) that manages autonomous vehicles in a fleet (see at least [0080]; “Vehicle 402 may be configured to autonomously (or semi-autonomously) transport passengers or objects (e.g., cargo) between locations and may take the form of any one or more of the vehicles discussed above, including passenger vehicles, cargo shipping vehicles (e.g., trucks), farming and manufacturing vehicles, and dual-purpose vehicles. When operating in autonomous mode, vehicle 402 may navigate to pick up and drop off passengers (or cargo) between desired destinations by relying on sensor measurements to detect and understand the surrounding environment. In some embodiments, vehicle 402 can operate as part of a fleet, which may be managed by a central system (e.g., remote computing device 404 and/or other computing devices).”); or a compass method. In regard to claim 7, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 5 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "at least one of external logic and internal logic". If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, Ma teaches assigning a unique phase code based on external logic, as detailed in the rejection of claim 5. Claim 7 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., assigning a unique phase code based on internal logic Regarding claim 8, Ma discloses [Note: what Ma fails to disclose is strike-through] A radar system (see at least Fig. 9, radar transceiver 900 and Fig. 10A, system 1000) comprising: transmit antennas (see at least Fig. 9, transmit antennas TX1 – TX4) configured to transmit a radar signal (see at least [0098]; “A vehicle radar system or another type of emitter may transmit signals according to pulse chain 600, which involves fast and slow-time modulation in ramp direction and phase shifts on a pulse-to-pulse basis, respectively.”); receive antennas that receive a radar return (see at least [0116]; “Block 1104 of method 1100 involves receiving radar reflections from the environment. The radar unit may include one or multiple reception antennas.”); and circuitry (see at least Fig. 10A, datacenter 1004. See also Fig. 10B, code generator 1014, and [0112]; “In addition, each block may represent circuitry that is wired to perform the specific logical functions in the process.”) configured to perform acts comprising: generating (see at least Fig. 10B, random code generator 1022. See also description in [0109]) a phase-shifted radar signal (see at least [0099]; “In addition, phase shift graph 606 conveys the different phase shifts implemented according to the sequence of phase codes (c={1, −1, 1, −1}) across pulses conveyed in code sequence 602. The example phase code represents a sequence of angles, respectively 0 degrees, 180 degrees, 0 degrees, and 180 degrees and can be described as having 2 alphabets ({0, 180})”) using a unique phase code that is commonly assigned (see at least [0003]; “With each vehicle radar system operating according to a unique code sequence received from the planning system, interference between the radar systems is further mitigated.”) to all transmitters included in the radar system (see at least Fig. 9; phase code sequence C from code book 906 is communicated to all transmitters 1-4. See also [0105]; “In addition, each transmit antenna 904 includes a transmit phase shifter to transmit phase shift of emitted signals based on the code sequence specified by the code book 906.”); transmitting the phase-shifted radar signal from transmit antennas (see at least [0098]; “A vehicle radar system or another type of emitter may transmit signals according to pulse chain 600, which involves fast and slow-time modulation in ramp direction and phase shifts on a pulse-to-pulse basis, respectively.”); receiving a radar return at receive antennas (see at least [0116]; “Block 1104 of method 1100 involves receiving radar reflections from the environment. The radar unit may include one or multiple reception antennas.”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation prior to Doppler analysis (see at least [0105]; “As further shown in FIG. 9, demodulator 908 can further demodulate received signals based on the spatial code conveyed in code book 906.” See also Fig. 9, where demodulator 908 precedes Doppler FFT.); and outputting an un-shifted processed radar signal (see at least Fig. 9, output of block diagram is “Range Doppler Image”). However, Ma does not explicitly give the process for demodulation and does not explicitly teach performing phase compensation by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value. Ma discloses a fleet-internal interference mitigation system for radar, and Kageme is directed to a radar device using phase codes. Kageme teaches: A radar system (see at least [0012]; “FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing a radar apparatus according to a first embodiment of the present invention.”), the system to perform acts comprising: generating a phase-shifted signal using a unique phase code that is assigned to the transmitter (see at least Fig. 7, block ST2; “Modulation cod generator generates modulation code by cyclically shifting cyclic code by cyclic shift amount that differs for each transmission radar”. See also block ST3; “Transmitter generates transmission RF signal by multiplying local oscillation signal by modulation code”.); transmitting the phase-shifted signal (see at least Fig. 7, block ST4; “Transmission RF signal is emitted from antenna into air”); receiving a return (see at least Fig. 11, block ST11; “Antenna receives reception RF signal”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation (see at least Fig. 13, block ST22; “Code demodulating unit performs code demodulation on frequency domain signal, using modulation codes for respective transmission radars”) prior to Doppler analysis (see at least [0175]; “When the target to be observed is assumed to be a moving target, the first integration unit 44 performs hit-direction Discrete Fourier Transform on the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) after code-demodulation, output from the code demodulating unit 42 as shown in expression (19) shown below, to coherently integrate the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) (step ST23 in FIG. 13).”) by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value in order to remove the phase shift (see at least [0151]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code demodulating unit 42 multiplies the code “1 1 −1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k) as a demodulation code by the acquired modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 1 −1”, to code-demodulate the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k).”) and outputting an un-shifted processed signal (see at least [0152]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code “1 −1 1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k), which is a demodulation code, and the modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 −1 1” are in phase with each other between hits. Accordingly, the code after the demodulation is “1 1 1”, and it is possible to perform coherent integration.”). Both Ma and Kageme use phase codes to shift the phase of transmitted signal, and undo the phase shift in the received signal. Both use this technique to screen out signals from other transmitters. Ma does not give the details of how the modulation and demodulation are mathematically performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kageme’s scheme for implementing phase codes, which involves multiplying by a phase compensation value, in the system of Ma. Such a modification would be obvious and have a reasonable expectation of success due to the similarities of the two systems. Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar system of claim 8. The remaining limitations of claim 10 are analogous to those of claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar system of claim 8. The remaining limitations of claim 11 are analogous to those of claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 12, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar system of claim 8. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are analogous to those of claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar system of claim 12. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are analogous to those of claim 6 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar system of claim 12. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are analogous to those of claim 7 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 15, Ma discloses [Note: what Ma fails to disclose is strike-through] A radar analysis system (see at least Fig. 9, radar transceiver 900) comprising: one or more processors configured to perform acts (see at least [0123]; “In one embodiment, example computer program product 1200 is provided using signal bearing medium 1202, which may include one or more programming instructions 1204 that, when executed by one or more processors may provide functionality or portions of the functionality described above with respect to FIGS. 1-11.”) comprising: generating a phase-shifted radar signal (see at least [0099]; “In addition, phase shift graph 606 conveys the different phase shifts implemented according to the sequence of phase codes (c={1, −1, 1, −1}) across pulses conveyed in code sequence 602. The example phase code represents a sequence of angles, respectively 0 degrees, 180 degrees, 0 degrees, and 180 degrees and can be described as having 2 alphabets ({0, 180})”) using a unique phase code that is commonly assigned (see at least [0003]; “With each vehicle radar system operating according to a unique code sequence received from the planning system, interference between the radar systems is further mitigated.”) to all transmitters included in the radar system (see at least Fig. 9; phase code sequence C from code book 906 is communicated to all transmitters 1-4. See also [0105]; “In addition, each transmit antenna 904 includes a transmit phase shifter to transmit phase shift of emitted signals based on the code sequence specified by the code book 906.”); transmitting the phase-shifted radar signal from transmit antennas (see at least [0098]; “A vehicle radar system or another type of emitter may transmit signals according to pulse chain 600, which involves fast and slow-time modulation in ramp direction and phase shifts on a pulse-to-pulse basis, respectively.” See also multiple transmit antennas TX1 – TX4 in Fig. 9); receiving a radar return at receive antennas (see at least [0116]; “Block 1104 of method 1100 involves receiving radar reflections from the environment. The radar unit may include one or multiple reception antennas.”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation (see at least [0105]; “As further shown in FIG. 9, demodulator 908 can further demodulate received signals based on the spatial code conveyed in code book 906.”); and outputting an un-shifted processed radar signal (see at least Fig. 9, output of block diagram is “Range Doppler Image”). However, Ma does not explicitly give the process for demodulation and does not explicitly teach performing phase compensation by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value. Ma discloses a fleet-internal interference mitigation system for radar, and Kageme is directed to a radar device using phase codes. Kageme teaches: A radar analysis system (see at least [0012]; “FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing a radar apparatus according to a first embodiment of the present invention.”) configured to perform acts comprising: generating a phase-shifted signal using a unique phase code that is assigned to the transmitter (see at least Fig. 7, block ST2; “Modulation cod generator generates modulation code by cyclically shifting cyclic code by cyclic shift amount that differs for each transmission radar”. See also block ST3; “Transmitter generates transmission RF signal by multiplying local oscillation signal by modulation code”.); transmitting the phase-shifted signal (see at least Fig. 7, block ST4; “Transmission RF signal is emitted from antenna into air”); receiving a return (see at least Fig. 11, block ST11; “Antenna receives reception RF signal”); during signal processing, performing phase compensation (see at least Fig. 13, block ST22; “Code demodulating unit performs code demodulation on frequency domain signal, using modulation codes for respective transmission radars”) prior to Doppler analysis (see at least [0175]; “When the target to be observed is assumed to be a moving target, the first integration unit 44 performs hit-direction Discrete Fourier Transform on the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) after code-demodulation, output from the code demodulating unit 42 as shown in expression (19) shown below, to coherently integrate the signals fb,0,c(nTX, nRX, h, k) (step ST23 in FIG. 13).”) by multiplying a radar signal received in the radar return by a phase compensation value in order to remove the phase shift (see at least [0151]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code demodulating unit 42 multiplies the code “1 1 −1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k) as a demodulation code by the acquired modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 1 −1”, to code-demodulate the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k).”) and outputting an un-shifted processed signal (see at least [0152]; “As shown in FIG. 14A, the code “1 −1 1” for the frequency domain signal fb(1, h, k), which is a demodulation code, and the modulation code Code(1, h)=“1 −1 1” are in phase with each other between hits. Accordingly, the code after the demodulation is “1 1 1”, and it is possible to perform coherent integration.”). Both Ma and Kageme use phase codes to shift the phase of transmitted signal, and undo the phase shift in the received signal. Both use this technique to screen out signals from other transmitters. Ma does not give the details of how the modulation and demodulation are mathematically performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kageme’s scheme for implementing phase codes, which involves multiplying by a phase compensation value, in the system of Ma. Such a modification would be obvious and have a reasonable expectation of success due to the similarities of the two systems. Regarding claim 17, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar analysis system of claim 15. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are analogous to those of claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 18, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar analysis system of claim 15. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are analogous to those of claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 19, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar analysis system of claim 15. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are analogous to those of claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons. Regarding claim 20, Ma in view of Kageme teaches the radar analysis system of claim 19. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are analogous to those of claim 6 and are rejected for similar reasons. 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 Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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. /ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 08, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601844
Satellite Signal Spoofing Detection System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578427
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING INDEPENDENT TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE CALIBRATION MATRICES FOR MIMO RADAR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567909
COHERENT RECEIVING DEVICE AND ANEMOMETRY LIDAR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560703
GENERATING POINT CLOUDS BASED UPON RADAR TENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554013
AUTOMATIC OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 36 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month