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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “MINO radar” in paragraphs [016], [017], [018], [032], [063], [068], [0250]. It is not clear what “MINO” represents. It appears that MINO should be MIMO. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 objected to because of typographical errors: “a first phase error” in line 2. It appears that “a” should be “the”. Appropriate corrections are 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 recite the limitations: 1) "for each first distance to a moving target" in claim 1 lines 4-5, claim 11 lines 6-7, and claim 18 line 11, respectively. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what the “first distance” is of. That is, it is not clear whether or not the distance is between the “radar” and the “moving target”. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “first distance” has different values because of “each first distance”. iii) it is not clear how many “first distance” exist. 2) “phase compensation” in claim 1 line 2 from bottom, claim 11 lines 2-3 from bottom, and claim 18 lines 6-7 from bottom, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear what signal the “phase compensation” is applied to. That is, it is not clear that the “phase compensation” is applied to transmission signals or applied to reception signals. 3) “phase compensation values corresponding to each distance” claim 1 line 1 from bottom, claim 11 lines 1-2 from bottom, and claim 18 lines 5-6 from bottom, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the relationship is between the “each distance” and the “each first distance”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11 because each of dependent claims 12-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 11.
Claims 19-23 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18 because each of dependent claims 19-23 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 18.
Claim 2 recites the limitations: 1) “for each second distance to a stationary reference target” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what the “second distance” is of. That is, it is not clear whether or not the “second distance” is between the “radar” and the “stationary reference target”. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “second distance” has different values because of “each second distance”. iii) it is not clear how many “second distance” exist. 2) “for phase error based on the second phase error for each second distance” in lines 1-2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “phase error” is of. That is, it is not clear whether or not the “phase error” is the “second phase error” or “the first phase error”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 3-4 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2 because each of dependent claims 3-4 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first determiner determines the first phase error using only the first reception signal and/or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a predetermined threshold” in lines 2-5. It is indefinite because as defined in claim 1 lines 4-7 “a first determiner configured to determine, for each first distance to a moving target, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signal”, it is not clear how “determines the first phase error using only the first reception signal or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a predetermined threshold” can implement “determine, ……, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signal”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3 because dependent claim 4 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: 1) “for each distance” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the relationship is between the “each distance” and the “each first distance”. 2) “determines an average value of the first phase errors for each distance as the first phase error for each first distance” in lines 2-4. It is indefinite because “the first phase error” mentioned twice in lines 3-4 are different in concept but they are the same in the claim. That is, “an average value of the first phase errors for each distance” is not equal to “the first phase error for each first distance”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 8, 15, 21 recites the limitation: “the first phase error” in claim 8 line 4, claim 15 lines 4-5, claim 21 line 4, respectively. It is indefinite because the “first phase error” “for each first distance based on a fitting line” and the determined “first phase error” “for each first distance” defined in claims 1 and 5 for claim 8, claims 11 and 13 for claim 15, claims 18-20 for claim 21, respectively, are different in concept but they are the same in the claim. That is, the “fitting line” is based on the “first phase error” defined in claims 1 and 5 for claim 8, claims 11 and 13 for claim 15, claims 18-20 for claim 21, respectively. This limitation is fitted value instead of the determined “the first phase error”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 9-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8 because each of dependent claims 9-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 8.
Claims 16-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15 because each of dependent claims 16-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 15.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determining a first phase error comprises determining the first phase error using only the first reception signal and/or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a predetermined threshold” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because as defined in claim 11 lines 6-8 “determining, for each first distance to the moving target, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signal”, it is not clear how “determining the first phase error using only the first reception signal or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a predetermined threshold” can implement “determining, ……, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signal”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the phase error compensation device determines the first phase error using only the first reception signal and/or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a specific threshold” in lines 1-5. It is indefinite because as defined in claim 18 lines 11-13 “determine, for each first distance to a moving target, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signal”, it is not clear how “determines the first phase error using only the first reception signal or the second reception signal whose phase linearity is greater than a specific threshold” can implement “determine, ……, a first phase error between a phase of a first reception signal and a phase of a second reception signa”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 20-21 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 19 because each of dependent claims 20-21 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648