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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 26 December, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection(s) regarding claim 20 has been overcome in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the claim(s).
Rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 regarding claim(s) 1-13 and 18-20 have been overcome in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 26 December, 2025 has been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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) 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 6,094,158 A previously cited “WILLIAMS”).
Regarding claim 18, WILLIAMS discloses (Examiner’s note: What WILLIAMS does not explicitly disclose is ) a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (the radar system includes a miniaturised radar front end assembly [col. 3, lines 16-17]; receive antenna 32 [col. 5, line 34])
determining a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (the zero-crossing rate is measured [col. 15, line 34])
Claim 18 recites a method. Limitation “determining that target motion is present in a field of view of the radar sensor in response to the rate is below a first threshold; determining that an interference signal is present in the field of view in response to the rate exceeding a second threshold greater than the first threshold; and controlling a power consumption of an electronic device based on determining that the target motion is present in the field of view and based on determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 20, WILLIAMS discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising: determining a potential presence of a target motion based on the data; and determining the rate in response to determining the potential presence of a target motion (the zero-crossing rate is measured when the beat frequency slope is positive [col. 15, lines 32-36]). It is further noted that when the beat frequency slope is positive, it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean that the potential target is approaching, indicating potential motion of the target.
Regarding claim 21, WILLIAMS discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. Claim 21 recites the step that does not need to be carried out, that is “controlling the power consumption of the electronic device”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 14-17, 19, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 6,094,158 A previously cited “WILLIAMS”), in view of Woodington et al. (US 2005/0179582 A1 newly cited “WOODINGTON”), and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0104935 A1 newly cited “CHANG”).
Regarding claim 1, WILLIAMS discloses an apparatus, comprising:
interface circuitry configured to receive data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (the radar system includes a miniaturised radar front end assembly [col. 3, lines 16-17]; receive antenna 32 [col. 5, line 34])
and processing circuitry (a central processor unit (CPU) 402 [col. 20, line 41]) configured to:
determine a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (the zero-crossing rate is measured [col. 15, line 34])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WOODINGTON teaches that echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of WOODINGTON, because doing so would provide reliable detection of objects, as recognized by WOODINGTON.
WILLIAMS, as modified by WOODINGTON, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose controlling a power consumption of an electronic device based on determining that the target motion is present in the field of view and based on determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHANG teaches that the processor 130 may be configured to detect a target 200 in the field ENV according to the reflected signal RS. In response to the target 200 not being detected in the field ENV, the processor switches to a power saving mode according to workload reduction information [0024]. In response to the target 200 being detected in the field ENV, the processor 130 may switch from the power saving mode to the normal working mode, and restore the workload of the frames in the normal working mode [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of CHANG, because power consumption of the radar apparatus can be saved while taking into account the requirements of normal detection work of the radar apparatus, thereby improving power conservation, as recognized by CHANG.
Regarding claim 2, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interface circuitry is further configured to receive second data indicating that a target motion is potentially detected in the field of view, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the rate upon receiving the second data (the zero-crossing rate is measured when the beat frequency slope is positive [WILLIAMS col. 15, lines 32-36]). It is further noted that when the beat frequency slope is positive, it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean that the potential target is approaching, indicating potential motion of the target.
Regarding claim 3, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine potential presence of a target motion based on the data; and in response to determining potential presence of the target motion, determine the rate (the zero-crossing rate is measured when the beat frequency slope is positive [WILLIAMS col. 15, lines 32-36]). It is further noted that when the beat frequency slope is positive, it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean that the potential target is approaching, indicating potential motion of the target.
Regarding claim 4, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine potential presence of a target motion based on at least one of a peak-to-peak value of the measurement signal, a sum of at least one amplitude value of the measurement signal in a frequency domain of the measurement signal, or a maximum amplitude value of the measurement signal in the frequency domain (echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle [WOODINGTON 0095], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the rate by determining a number of crossings of the predefined value per at least one frame of the data (the zero-crossing rate is measured when the beat frequency slope is positive, i.e., it is counted once per modulation period T [WILLIAMS col. 15, lines 34-35]).
Regarding claim 14, WILLIAMS discloses an electronic device (an FMCW radar system includes a radar front end assembly referred to as a SMART system 22 [col. 5, lines 25-29]), comprising an apparatus including:
interface circuitry configured to receive data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (the radar system includes a miniaturised radar front end assembly [col. 3, lines 16-17]; receive antenna 32 [col. 5, line 34])
and processing circuitry (a central processor unit (CPU) 402 [col. 20, line 41]) configured to:
determine a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (the zero-crossing rate is measured [col. 15, line 34])
and generate an output signal indicating whether it has been determined that the target motion is present in the field of view and whether the interference signal is present in the field of view (the central processor unit 402 assesses whether any of the objects are in the vehicle's path and identifies any threatened collisions [col. 20, lines 63-65])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WOODINGTON teaches that echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of WOODINGTON, because doing so would provide reliable detection of objects, as recognized by WOODINGTON.
WILLIAMS, as modified by WOODINGTON, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose controlling a power consumption of an electronic device based on determining that the target motion is present in the field of view and based on determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHANG teaches that the processor 130 may be configured to detect a target 200 in the field ENV according to the reflected signal RS. In response to the target 200 not being detected in the field ENV, the processor switches to a power saving mode according to workload reduction information [0024]. In response to the target 200 being detected in the field ENV, the processor 130 may switch from the power saving mode to the normal working mode, and restore the workload of the frames in the normal working mode [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of CHANG, because power consumption of the radar apparatus can be saved while taking into account the requirements of normal detection work of the radar apparatus, thereby improving power conservation, as recognized by CHANG.
Regarding claim 15, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the electronic device of claim 14 further comprising a radar sensor for generating the measurement signal (an FMCW radar system includes a radar front end assembly referred to as a SMART system 22 [WILLIAMS col. 5, lines 25-29]); (a transmit antenna 30 [WILLIAMS col. 5, line 34]).
Regarding claim 16, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the electronic device comprises one of a consumer device including a home assistant device, a speaker, a smartphone, a television receiver, an air conditioning unit, a smart light, or a tablet computer, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or an industrial device (the system can be used as part of a vehicle collision avoidance or warning system, in a cruise control system or air bag deployment system. Other possible applications of the system include altimeter systems, security systems, robotic control systems, unmanned planetary exploration vehicles, toys [WILLIAMS col. 21, lines 15-20]).
Regarding claim 17, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control operation of the electronic device based on the output signal by at least one of activating and deactivating the electronic device, changing an operational mode of the electronic device, or changing an operational parameter of the electronic device (the processor 130 may be configured to detect a target 200 in the field ENV according to the reflected signal RS. In response to the target 200 not being detected in the field ENV, the processor switches to a power saving mode according to workload reduction information [CHANG 0024]. In response to the target 200 being detected in the field ENV, the processor 130 may switch from the power saving mode to the normal working mode, and restore the workload of the frames in the normal working mode [CHANG 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 2 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 22, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the power consumption of the electronic device by: waking up the electronic device from a standby mode in response to determining that the target motion is present in the field of view; and switching the electronic device to the standby mode in response to determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view (the processor 130 may be configured to detect a target 200 in the field ENV according to the reflected signal RS. In response to the target 200 not being detected in the field ENV, the processor switches to a power saving mode according to workload reduction information [CHANG 0024]. In response to the target 200 being detected in the field ENV, the processor 130 may switch from the power saving mode to the normal working mode, and restore the workload of the frames in the normal working mode [CHANG 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 23 corresponds to claim 22 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS, in view of WOODINGTON and CHANG, and further in view of LU-DAC et al. (US 2020/0180472 A1 newly cited “LU-DAC”).
Regarding claim 8, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interface circuitry is further configured to, in response to determining that the rate is between the first threshold and the second threshold (echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle [WOODINGTON 0095], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LU-DAC teaches that an R-value lying between R1 and R2 is inconclusive: there is either a sleeping baby present or a strong influence from external sources [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of LU-DAC, because doing so would reduce instances of false detections and improve detection accuracy, as recognized by LU-DAC.
Regarding claim 9, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to determining that the rate is between the first threshold and the second threshold (echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle [WOODINGTON 0095], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LU-DAC teaches that an R-value lying between R1 and R2 is inconclusive: there is either a sleeping baby present or a strong influence from external sources; and a subsequent breathing pattern extraction algorithm must be executed to determine which is the case [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of LU-DAC, because doing so would reduce instances of false detections and improve detection accuracy, as recognized by LU-DAC.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS, in view of WOODINGTON and CHANG, and further in view of Lopez Martin et al. (EP 2,101,458 A1 previously cited “LOPEZ MARTIN”).
Regarding claim 10, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOPEZ MARTIN teaches the in-phase i(t) and quadrature q(t) components [0031]. Furthermore, LOPEZ MARTIN teaches that transitions from quadrant to quadrant are detected when either i(t) or q(t) change sign, i.e., at the zero crossings of either i(t) or q(t). For instance, transition from the first to the second quadrant happens at the zero crossing of i(t) when q(t) is positive [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of LOPEZ MARTIN, because doing so would increase system robustness and sensitivity, as recognized by LOPEZ MARTIN.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS, in view of WOODINGTON and CHANG, and further in view of Ivchenko et al. (US 2011/0227556 A1 previously cited “IVCHENKO”).
Regarding claim 12, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, IVCHENKO teaches that the zero-cross detection facility 218 may include several software programmable configuration options, such as zero level, enable zero-cross detection, number of samples to average for the purposes of detecting the input signal 208 had crossed the programmed zero level, and other options associated with detecting a zero crossing. Zero-cross facility 218 may provide a zero signal 222 indicative of a when the evaluated signal crosses the programmed zero level [0061]. Additionally, IVCHENKO teaches that the digital sample provided by the analog to digital converter facility 210 may be simultaneously or contemporaneously applied to moving sum facility 220, wherein a running average of samples may be calculated. The running average of samples may be provided to an ALU 228 for computing various mathematical functions related to the inputs [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WILLIAMS to include the teachings of IVCHENKO, because doing so would provide important features that can affect accurate position detection and simulation reproduction, as recognized by IVCHENKO.
Regarding claim 13, WILLIAMS/ WOODINGTON/ CHANG/ IVCHENKO discloses the apparatus of claim 12 further comprising: memory configured to store a respective number of crossings of the predefined value for each of a predefined number of subsequent frames of the data, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the average number of crossings based on the respective number of crossings stored in the memory (the digital sample provided by the analog to digital converter facility 210 may be simultaneously or contemporaneously applied to moving sum facility 220, wherein a running average of samples may be calculated. The running average of samples may be provided to an ALU 228 for computing various mathematical functions related to the inputs [IVCHENKO 0062], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12).
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 HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 23, 2026
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights