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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 19 JAN 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/417,036, filed on 19 JAN 2024, claims priority from provisional application 63/480,656, filed on 19 JAN 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 JAN 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2, the “De-vectorize” arrow in the OTFS demodulation block should be pointing to the right. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6 and 14-16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “and/or” should be “or”
In claims 4-6 and 14-16, line 3, “moving objects” should be “dynamic objects”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (“Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art and the Road Ahead,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 19 JAN 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving one or more radar data frames from one or more antennas of a base station or a user equipment device in an environment (Liu et al. “To be more specific, we consider a MIMO mmWave BS that serves a multi-antenna UE and at the same time detects multiple targets, where part of the targets are also the scatterers fall in the communication channel.” – p. 3843, section C, left column);
processing the one or more radar data frames to identify one or more attributes of one or more static objects and/or one or more dynamic objects in the environment (Liu et al. “A novel mmWave mMIMO DRFC architecture that can simultaneously detect targes while communicated with the UE… A joint signal processing strategy that can search for unknown targets while estimating the communication channel” – p. 3843, section C, right column; and
estimating one or more channels, one or more attributes of the one or more channels, or both for the user equipment device and the base station based on the one or more attributes of the one or more static objects and the one or more dynamic objects (Liu et al. “In Stage 1, we estimate the parameters of all the potential targets and the communication channel parameters by using both DL and UL pilots.” - p. 3843, section C, left column).
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more attributes of the one or more static objects and the one or more dynamic objects comprise angle of arrival (AoA), angle of departure (AoD), delay, and Doppler velocity and the one or more attributes of the one or more channels comprise a power gain, a complex gain, delay, angle of arrival, and angle of departure of the one or more channels (Liu et al. “the BS first sends omnidirectional DL pilots (DP), and then estimates the K AoAs in Θ as well as the associated range and Doppler parameters of all K targets… the BS is able to identify those targets which also play the role of scatterers in the communication link, and will further estimate the Doppler and delay parameters of the corresponding communication paths.” – p. 3846, Section IV.1, left column; “After the first stage, the BS will have the estimates of θk, pk, qk, ∀k for all the targets.” – p. 3846, Section IV.2, left column).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art and the Road Ahead,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 19 JAN 2024) in view of Sung (KR 102264941 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1
Sung discloses:
wherein the processing the one or more radar data frames comprises removing radar signals corresponding to the one or more static objects to yield one or more decluttered radar data frames (Sung “Step S50 is the step that performs object detection and tracking by applying the MTI (Moving Target Indication) algorithm” - ¶ [0058]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. to yield the invention of claim 3 above. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. discloses the method of claim 1. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing the one or more radar data frames comprises removing radar signals corresponding to the one or more static objects to yield one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a Moving Target Indication algorithm is used (Sung ¶ [0058]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 3
Sung discloses:
performing a first discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract range information corresponding to one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames (Sung “Step S10 corresponds to conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” - ¶ [0056])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 4. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 3. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose performing a first discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract range information corresponding to one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a “conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” (Sung ¶ [0056]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]), and accurately identify, locate and track objects in the environment (Sung ¶ [0016], [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 4
Sung discloses:
performing a second discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract Doppler information corresponding to the one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames (Sung “Step S10 corresponds to conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” - ¶ [0056]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 5. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 4. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose performing a second discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract Doppler information corresponding to the one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a “conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” (Sung ¶ [0056]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]), and accurately identify, locate and track objects in the environment (Sung ¶ [0016], [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 5
Sung discloses:
performing a third discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract angle information corresponding to the one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames (Sung “Step S10 corresponds to conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” - ¶ [0056]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 6. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 5. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose performing a third discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract angle information corresponding to the one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a “conventional signal processing algorithm that is performed in the manner of 1st distance FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2nd velocity FFT [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3rd Dim FFT (Angle arrival).” (Sung ¶ [0056]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]), and accurately identify, locate and track objects in the environment (Sung ¶ [0016], [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 6
Sung discloses:
generating a radar 3D-heatmap based on the range information, the Doppler information, and the angle information (Sung “In one embodiment, the system may have the second radar sensor (120) generate a UWB Range-Doppler-Angle Heat Map and wirelessly transmit it to the computing device (200).” - ¶ [0012]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 7. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 6. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose performing a third discrete Fourier transformation on the one or more decluttered radar data frames to extract angle information corresponding to the one or more moving objects in the one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a UWB Range-Doppler-Angle Heat Map is generated (Sung ¶ [0012]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]), accurately identify, locate and track objects in the environment (Sung ¶ [0016], [0032]), and display the detection results to a viewer (Sung ¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
A computer system (Liu et al. discusses computational efficiency – p. 3839-3842) comprising:
a hardware processor (Liu et al. “a HAD receiver that can simultaneously process signals from the UE and echo waves from the targets.” - abstract);
receiving one or more radar data frames from one or more antennas of a base station or a user equipment device in an environment (Liu et al. “To be more specific, we consider a mMIMO mmWave BS that serves a multi-antenna UE and at the same time detects multiple targets, where part of the targets are also the scatterers fall in the communication channel.” – p. 3843, section C, left column);
processing the one or more radar data frames to identify one or more attributes of one or more static objects and one or more dynamic objects in the environment (Liu et al. “A novel mmWave mMIMO DRFC architecture that can simultaneously detect targes while communicated with the UE… A joint signal processing strategy that can search for unknown targets while estimating the communication channel” – p. 3843, section C, right column); and
estimating one or more channels, one or more attributes of the one or more channels, or both for the user equipment device and the base station based on the one or more attributes of the one or more static objects and the one or more dynamic objects (Liu et al. “In Stage 1, we estimate the parameters of all the potential targets and the communication channel parameters by using both DL and UL pilots.” - p. 3843, section C, left column).
Sung discloses:
a non-volatile computer readable medium that stores instruction (Sung “Radar sensor information is provided to a computing device. Here, the computing device may be a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet PC. The computing device collects radar sensor information to image the surrounding environment at close range, forming a GPS map to detect objects, including people and objects, monitor the surrounding environment, and display the detection and monitoring results on the screen.” - ¶ [0026]; where mobile devices such as smartphones or tablet PCs obviously comprise non-volatile computer readable media in order to retain the instructions, application software or data when the mobile device is turned off)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sung into the invention of Liu et al. to yield the invention of claim 11 above. Both Liu et al. and Sung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. discloses the method of claim 1. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing the one or more radar data frames comprises removing radar signals corresponding to the one or more static objects to yield one or more decluttered radar data frames. This feature is disclosed by Sung where a Moving Target Indication algorithm is used (Sung ¶ [0058]). The combination of Liu et al. and Sung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art and the Road Ahead,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 19 JAN 2024) in view of Sung (KR 102264941 B1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 11,398,070 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 7
Sung discloses:
the 3D-heatmap (Sung “In one embodiment, the system may have the second radar sensor (120) generate a UWB Range-Doppler-Angle Heat Map and wirelessly transmit it to the computing device (200).” - ¶ [0012]).
Shah et al. discloses:
determining one or more peaks in the 3D-heatmap (Shah et al. “Determine, utilizing sensor data, first data representing heatmap, heatmap representing three-dimensional representation of environment and wherein individual coordinates of heatmap indicate intensity of energy received by millimeter wave radar receiver” – S604, Fig. 6; “Generate, utilizing first data, second data representing point cloud, individual points of point cloud indicating rate of change of intensity associated with adjacent coordinates of heatmap” – S606, Fig. 6; “Determine first set of points of point cloud that corresponds to first set of energy intensity maximums…” – S608, Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Shah et al. into the invention of Liu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 8. Liu et al., Sung and Shah et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose processing radar signals to determine the locations of targets. Liu et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 7. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose determining one or more peaks in the 3D-heatmap. This feature is disclosed by Shah et al. where the peak value of the discrete response of the DD domain radar channel is calculated and the peak value of the channel would correspond to the peak value of the 3D heatmap of Sung. The combination of Liu et al., Sung and Shah et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for clear identification of moving objects (Sung ¶ [0058]), accurately identify, locate and track objects in the environment (Sung ¶ [0016], [0032]), display the detection results to a viewer (Sung ¶ [0013]), and to “indicate the presence of a surface, and particularly a wall.” (Shah et al. Col. 3, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising estimating a channel or channel attributes based on the one or more peaks in the 3D heatmap (Liu et al. “After analog combination, the BS picks the specific L entries having the L largest moduli from GRFYUL1T+P. This is equivalent to identifying the L RF chains that output the L largest signal power, generated by the signals arriving from L AoAs θl, ∀l of the communication channel. By doing so, the BS can identify Θ1 from Θ.” – p. 3850. Section C, left column; where the largest signal power corresponds with the beamforming angle that aligns with the channel).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising extracting one or more radar paths based on the one or more peaks that were determined (Liu et al. “After analog combination, the BS picks the specific L entries having the L largest moduli from GRFYUL1T+P. This is equivalent to identifying the L RF chains that output the L largest signal power, generated by the signals arriving from L AoAs θl, ∀l of the communication channel. By doing so, the BS can identify Θ1 from Θ.” – p. 3850. Section C, left column; where the largest signal power corresponds with the beamforming angle that aligns with the radar path; “By finding the K largest peaks of (31), we can readily locate the AoAs of the K targets” – p. 3848, section B, right column).
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
8 JAN 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648