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 .
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 19 December, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection(s) regarding claim(s) 6 and 20 previously set forth have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Claim rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) regarding claim(s) 1-15 previously set forth have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Claim rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 regarding claim(s) 1-5, 16, and 18-20 previously set forth have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 19 December, 2025 has been fully considered but is moot in view of a new ground of rejection. However, the Examiner further noted that:
Applicant’s argument:
“Jensen discloses using two radar sensors simultaneously to allow bilateration in which the two individual location estimate loci, which are spheroidal, intersect to form a combined error locus that is essentially a tube. Accordingly, Jensen concludes that the target position must lie somewhere within this tube. However, Jensen fails to disclose “calculating, by the first wireless device, a first distance using the first reflected sensing signal”.”
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that Jensen fails to disclose “calculating, by the first wireless device, a first distance using the first reflected sensing signal”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jensen discloses that the monostatic return signal indicates a range from the particular radar unit 102, 104 of any target in the transmission path [col. 4, lines 29-31] which corresponds to the detection of the first distance using the first reflected sensing signal.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15-16, and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices” which is suggested to be amended to “an ultra-wide band (UWB) [[devices]]device”.
Claim 9 recites “receiving a set of signals derived from the sensing signal transmitted by the second wireless device by a third wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices” which is objected to, because the claim is unclear grammatically.
Claim 15 recites “an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices” which is suggested to be amended to “an ultra-wide band (UWB) [[devices]]device”.
Claim 16 recites “using a second reflected signal derived from the signal and the signal” which is objected to, because the claim is unclear grammatically.
Claim 19 recites “an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices” which is suggested to be amended to “an ultra-wide band (UWB) [[devices]]device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 5, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 6,545,633 B1 previously cited “JENSEN”), in view of Chen (US 2006/0202885 A1 newly cited “CHEN”).
Regarding claim 1, JENSEN discloses (Examiner’s note: What JENSEN does not disclose is ) a method comprising:
transmitting, from a first wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices, a sensing signal (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [col. 4, lines 26-29])
switching the first wireless device from transmission to receiving to receive a first reflected sensing signal (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [col. 4, lines 26-29])
calculating, by the first wireless device, a first distance using the first reflected sensing signal (the monostatic return signal indicates a range from the particular radar unit 102, 104 of any target in the transmission path [col. 4, lines 29-31])
receiving, by a second wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, a set of signals derived from the sensing signal, wherein the set of signals includes the sensing signal and a second reflected sensing signal (each radar unit can simultaneously receive and process reflected target/clutter energy from the other radar's transmission pulses [col. 5, lines 37-39]); (the two units operate simultaneously in monostatic and bistatic modes [col. 5, lines 41-42])
calculating, by the second wireless device, a second distance to an object located near the first wireless device and the second wireless device using the second reflected sensing signal the monostatic return signal indicates a range from the particular radar unit 102, 104 of any target in the transmission path [col. 4, lines 29-31])
and performing, in the bistatic operation the target range dimension corresponds to the sum of range vectors from the target to the transmitter and to the receiver. Thus, for the bistatic operation the isorange locus 110 is spheroidal with the transmitter 102 and receiver 104 locating the two foci of ellipse 110 [col. 4, lines 37-42])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches that radar receiver (103) receives the encoded radar signal reflected from target 105 along the indirect path on a first channel, and also has a second channel for receiving the encoded radar signal from radar transmitter (101) along the direct path [0028]. Radar receiver 103 combines the direct path information and the indirect path information in compute target data 618. In computing target data (618) for imaging or detection, the radar performs coherent bistatic signal processing from data in the direct and indirect path [0054].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would improve and maintain pulse coherency in radar signal processing, as recognized by CHEN.
Regarding claim 2, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the wireless devices is one of: an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices, a radar module, a wireless local area network (WLAN) module, or a wireless personal area network (WPAN) module (radar units 102, 104 [JENSEN col. 4, line 26], cited and incorporated by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches that the direct path signal is used to update B dynamically. After decoding the bistatic waveform of FIGS. 3 and 4, t0 is now available at receiver 103. Also, receiver 103 knows the arrival time of the direct signal, or detection time, tdet [0044]. The direct pulse will always arrive before the indirect path pulse [0046].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would improve and maintain pulse coherency in radar signal processing, as recognized by CHEN.
Regarding claim 16, JENSEN discloses a processing device comprising:
transmitting, by a first wireless device, a signal (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [col. 4, lines 26-29])
receiving, from the first wireless device, a first estimated distance using a first reflected signal derived from the signal (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [col. 4, lines 26-29])
receiving, from a second wireless device, a second estimated distance using a second reflected signal derived from the signal the monostatic return signal indicates a range from the particular radar unit 102, 104 of any target in the transmission path [col. 4, lines 29-31])
determining, in the bistatic operation the target range dimension corresponds to the sum of range vectors from the target to the transmitter and to the receiver. Thus, for the bistatic operation the isorange locus 110 is spheroidal with the transmitter 102 and receiver 104 locating the two foci of ellipse 110 [col. 4, lines 37-42])
and performing, based on the final distance, at least one of object detection, localization, or tracking of the object (in the bistatic operation the target range dimension corresponds to the sum of range vectors from the target to the transmitter and to the receiver. Thus, for the bistatic operation the isorange locus 110 is spheroidal with the transmitter 102 and receiver 104 locating the two foci of ellipse 110 [col. 4, lines 37-42])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches that radar receiver (103) receives the encoded radar signal reflected from target 105 along the indirect path on a first channel, and also has a second channel for receiving the encoded radar signal from radar transmitter (101) along the direct path [0028]. Radar receiver 103 combines the direct path information and the indirect path information in compute target data 618. In computing target data (618) for imaging or detection, the radar performs coherent bistatic signal processing from data in the direct and indirect path [0054].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would improve and maintain pulse coherency in radar signal processing, as recognized by CHEN.
Regarding claim 17, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the processing device of claim 16, wherein receiving the first estimated distance comprises: switching the first wireless device from transmitting to receiving (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [JENSEN col. 4, lines 26-29], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); receiving, by the first wireless device, the first reflected signal (each independent radar unit 102, 104 operates monostatically, transmitting a radio frequency (RF) energy pulse and receiving a return signal from the transmitted RF pulse [JENSEN col. 4, lines 26-29], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches that the indirect signal 505 arrives at receiver 103 at time (R1+R2)/c [0049]. The direct pulse will always arrive before the indirect path pulse [0046]. Receiver 103 is a distance R2 away from target 105 [0024].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would improve and maintain pulse coherency in radar signal processing, as recognized by CHEN.
Regarding claim 18, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the processing device of claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches that the direct path signal is used to update B dynamically. After decoding the bistatic waveform of FIGS. 3 and 4, t0 is now available at receiver 103. Also, receiver 103 knows the arrival time of the direct signal, or detection time, tdet [0044]. The direct pulse will always arrive before the indirect path pulse [0046].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would improve and maintain pulse coherency in radar signal processing, as recognized by CHEN.
Regarding claim 19, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the processing device of claim 16, wherein each of the first wireless device or the second wireless device is one of: an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices, a radar module, a wireless local area network (WLAN) module, or a wireless personal area network (WPAN) module (radar units 102, 104 [JENSEN col. 4, line 26], cited and incorporated by rejection of claim 16).
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JENSEN, in view of CHEN, and further in view of Xin et al. (US 2021/0278518 A1 previously cited “XIN”).
Regarding claim 4, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, XIN teaches that the signal strength of a signal processed by a given processing element exceeds the first predetermined threshold when the signal interacts with one or more objects of interest. In this way, sensing of objects in the environment is accomplished [0050].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of XIN, because doing so would improve detection for object(s) of interest and filter out fake targets, as recognized by XIN.
Regarding claim 20, JENSEN/ CHEN discloses the processing device of claim 18,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, XIN teaches that the signal strength of a signal processed by a given processing element exceeds the first predetermined threshold when the signal interacts with one or more objects of interest. In this way, sensing of objects in the environment is accomplished [0050].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of XIN, because doing so would improve detection for object(s) of interest and filter out fake targets, as recognized by XIN.
Claim(s) 7-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarko (US 2021/0122333 A1 newly cited “AZARKO”), in view of Trainin et al. (US 2023/0236303 A1 newly cited “TRAININ”).
Regarding claim 7, AZARKO discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of wireless devices (ECU 7, key fob or tag 12 [0043]); (radar unit 9 [0052])
and a processing device (an electronic control unit (ECU) 7 [0041]) coupled to the plurality of wireless devices, wherein the processing device is to perform operations comprising:
in response to initiating keyless entry (KLE), an LF transmitter in the ECU and sent as a monitoring frequency to detect such approaches and wake-up the tag when it enters the mutual recognition zone. The tag has an LF receiver for receiving the LF signal from the ECU when the tag is within the recognition zone [0043])
in response to identifying a first switch event, initiating blind spot detection (BSD) (enable a logic decision of when to activate radar unit 9, which also may be a physical part of electronics base station 10 or a separate unit [0052])
and in response to initiating BSD, when the radar 9 wakes up, it scans for patterns of movement by any object in its field. The second side of the system activates a radar transmitter and receiver 14 installed in the car [0052])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TRAININ teaches that each set of radar setup information 702 and 704 may identify which of the STAs 710 or 720 is to perform its radar ranging operation first and which of the STAs 710 or 720 is to perform its radar ranging operation second [0083]. The STAs 510 and 520 may be examples of the radar devices 410 and 420 [0067].
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 AZARKO to include the teachings of TRAININ, because doing so would verify the location of objects in the LOS of multiple radar STAs as well as improve detection of presence and movement of objects that may be “hidden” from the LOS of one or more radar STAs, as recognized by TRAININ.
Regarding claim 8, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: in response to receiving the signal from the remote access device by the first wireless device, transmitting, from the first wireless device, a signal indicating that the remote access device is within range (use of a wake-up function and broadcast of LF frequency to determine distance in a mutual recognition zone [AZARKO 0061]).
Regarding claim 9, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: in response to receiving a set of signals derived from the sensing signal transmitted by the second wireless device by a third wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, obtaining, from the third wireless device, a distance to the object (each set of radar setup information 702 and 704 may identify which of the STAs 710 or 720 is to perform its radar ranging operation first and which of the STAs 710 or 720 is to perform its radar ranging operation second [TRAININ 0083]. The STAs 510 and 520 may be examples of the radar devices 410 and 420 [TRAININ 0067]); (the radar device 410 may determine, obtain calculate, or otherwise ascertain a distance (L2) of the object 401 based on a round-trip-time (RTT) or time-of-flight (ToF) of the radar pulse 414 [TRAININ 0063]).
Regarding claim 10, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the distance to the object is determined by determining a reception time for each signal of the set of signals, calculating, for each reflected sensing signal of the set of signals, a difference between the reception time of a respective reflected sensing signal and the reception time of a non-reflected sensing signal of the set of signals, and converting each difference associated with a reflected sensing signal of the set of signals to the distance (the radar device 410 may determine, obtain calculate, or otherwise ascertain a distance (L2) of the object 401 based on a round-trip-time (RTT) or time-of-flight (ToF) of the radar pulse 414 [TRAININ 0063]).
Regarding claim 15, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein each of the wireless devices is one of: an ultra-wide band (UWB) devices, a radar module, a wireless local area network (WLAN) module, or a wireless personal area network (WPAN) module (ECU 7, key fob or tag 12 [AZARKO 0043]); (radar unit 9 [AZARKO 0052]); (the STAs 510 and 520 may be examples of the radar devices 410 and 420 [TRAININ 0067]).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AZARKO, in view of TRAININ, and further in view of Jungmaier (US 2020/0132808 A1 previously cited “JUNGMAIER”).
Regarding claim 11, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JUNGMAIER teaches that when the timer expires (e.g., when counter 410 reaches a predetermined threshold), a timer flag is asserted. When the timer flag is asserted, FSM 402 moves into transition state 504. During transition state 504, many blocks of millimeter-wave radar 102 are turned on, such as crystal oscillator 112. FSM 402 selects, using MUX 408, crystal oscillator 112 to clock counter 410. After transition state 504, FSM 402 moves into active mode, repeating the sequence [0041-0042]. Once millimeter-wave radar 102 finishes transmitting and receiving the radiation pulses, a sleep flag is asserted (e.g., transition from an inactive state, e.g., low, into an active state, e.g., high) to signal that millimeter-wave radar 102 is idle. The sleep flag may be a bit in a register, a signal, or some other flag [0030].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of JUNGMAIER, because doing so would adapt the radar system for dynamic performance and power consumption, as recognized by JUNGMAIER.
Regarding claim 12, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JUNGMAIER teaches that when the timer expires (e.g., when counter 410 reaches a predetermined threshold), a timer flag is asserted. When the timer flag is asserted, FSM 402 moves into transition state 504. During transition state 504, many blocks of millimeter-wave radar 102 are turned on, such as crystal oscillator 112. FSM 402 selects, using MUX 408, crystal oscillator 112 to clock counter 410. After transition state 504, FSM 402 moves into active mode, repeating the sequence [0041-0042]. Once millimeter-wave radar 102 finishes transmitting and receiving the radiation pulses, a sleep flag is asserted (e.g., transition from an inactive state, e.g., low, into an active state, e.g., high) to signal that millimeter-wave radar 102 is idle. The sleep flag may be a bit in a register, a signal, or some other flag [0030].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of JUNGMAIER, because doing so would adapt the radar system for dynamic performance and power consumption, as recognized by JUNGMAIER.
Regarding claim 13, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JUNGMAIER teaches that when the timer expires (e.g., when counter 410 reaches a predetermined threshold), a timer flag is asserted. When the timer flag is asserted, FSM 402 moves into transition state 504. During transition state 504, many blocks of millimeter-wave radar 102 are turned on, such as crystal oscillator 112. FSM 402 selects, using MUX 408, crystal oscillator 112 to clock counter 410. After transition state 504, FSM 402 moves into active mode, repeating the sequence [0041-0042]. Once millimeter-wave radar 102 finishes transmitting and receiving the radiation pulses, a sleep flag is asserted (e.g., transition from an inactive state, e.g., low, into an active state, e.g., high) to signal that millimeter-wave radar 102 is idle. The sleep flag may be a bit in a register, a signal, or some other flag [0030].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of JUNGMAIER, because doing so would adapt the radar system for dynamic performance and power consumption, as recognized by JUNGMAIER.
Regarding claim 14, AZARKO/ TRAININ discloses the apparatus of claim 7,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JUNGMAIER teaches that when the timer expires (e.g., when counter 410 reaches a predetermined threshold), a timer flag is asserted. When the timer flag is asserted, FSM 402 moves into transition state 504. During transition state 504, many blocks of millimeter-wave radar 102 are turned on, such as crystal oscillator 112. FSM 402 selects, using MUX 408, crystal oscillator 112 to clock counter 410. After transition state 504, FSM 402 moves into active mode, repeating the sequence [0041-0042]. Once millimeter-wave radar 102 finishes transmitting and receiving the radiation pulses, a sleep flag is asserted (e.g., transition from an inactive state, e.g., low, into an active state, e.g., high) to signal that millimeter-wave radar 102 is idle. The sleep flag may be a bit in a register, a signal, or some other flag [0030].
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 JENSEN to include the teachings of JUNGMAIER, because doing so would adapt the radar system for dynamic performance and power consumption, as recognized by JUNGMAIER.
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 March 18, 2026
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648