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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbuch et al. (US 2019/0041495; Cited in PTO-892 Part of Paper No. 20251218) in view of Braun et al. (US 2024/0072434).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Steinbuch discloses a radar sensor and a method for self-monitoring of the radar sensor (Abstract; e.g., a self-monitoring device for detecting operating parameters of the radar sensor), which carries out object detection of an object using a measurement process based on a measurement signal (paragraph [0023]; e.g., see track object), the method comprising:
self-monitoring, by the radar sensor, during the measurement process using a test signal superimposed on the measurement signal (paragraphs [0029], [0031], [0036]; e.g., self-monitoring module 26 applies a test signal T to the outputs of the two antennae 18).
Steinbuch discloses the test signal is fed to receive channels, but fails to specifically disclose the test signal is encoded by signal encoding such that the encoded test signal is differentiated from the measurement signal.
However, Braun discloses the test signal is encoded by signal encoding such that the encoded test signal is differentiated from the measurement signal (paragraphs [0009]-[0010]; e.g., The test signal generator and measurement function 110 includes the encoders 112 that generate orthogonal test signals, for example, in real-time and in the time domain using different orthogonal codes).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Steinbuch in combination of Braun as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to encoding the signal that the encoded test signal is differentiated from the measurement signal in order to enable beamforming by efficient control of spatial coherent additions of desired signals and coherent subtractions of unwanted signals (Braun: paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 1, wherein the signal encoding includes code-division multiple access (Braun: paragraphs [0005], [0009]; e.g., multiple measurements can be obtained simultaneously).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Steinbuch in combination of Braun as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to encoding the signal includes code-division multiple access in order to enable beamforming by efficient control of spatial coherent additions of desired signals and coherent subtractions of unwanted signals (Braun: paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 2, wherein the code-division multiple access multiplies the test signal by a spread code pattern (Braun: paragraphs [0005], [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 1, wherein the signal encoding takes place by frequency-division multiplexing (Braun: paragraphs [0005], [0009]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Steinbuch in combination of Braun as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to encoding the signal encoding takes place by frequency-division multiplexing in order to enable beamforming by efficient control of spatial coherent additions of desired signals and coherent subtractions of unwanted signals.
Regarding claim 5, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 4, wherein the frequency-division multiplexing is orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (Braun: paragraphs [0005], [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 1, wherein the signal encoding includes time-division multiplexing (Braun: paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Steinbuch in combination of Braun as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to encoding the signal includes time-division multiplexing for advantages of maximize bandwidth by dividing a single transmission channel into distinct time slots, allowing multiple signals to take turns traveling over the same wire.
Regarding claim 8, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 1, wherein the signal encoding includes Doppler-division multiplexing (Braun: paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 8, wherein the test signal is offset from the measurement signal by a Doppler shift in a Doppler dimension (Steinbuch: paragraph [0023], [0035]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbuch in combination with Braun, in view of Maiellaro et al. (US 2018/0188317; Cited in PTO-892 Part of Paper No. 20251218).
Regarding claim 7, Steinbuch in combination with Braun discloses the method for self-monitoring as recited in claim 6, fails to specifically disclose wherein the test signal is superimposed on the measurement signal in first time intervals that alternate with superimposition-free second time intervals.
However, Maiellaro discloses the test signal is superimposed on the measurement signal in first time intervals that alternate with superimposition-free second time intervals (paragraphs [0020], [0129], [0140]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Steinbuch in combination with Braun and Maiellaro as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to superimpose the test signal on the measurement signal in first time intervals that alternate with superimposition-free second time intervals in order to allowing for higher spectral efficiency and better performance in high-mobility scenarios compared to traditional methods like OFDM.
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 TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights