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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2022 128 752.1, filed on 28 October 2022.
The disclosure of the parent Application No. DE 10 2022 128 752.1, fails to provide adequate support for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “select only one of the chirps to provide to the output of the selection block.” The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate support for this limitation.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the selected only one of the chirps provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than the plurality of chirps on the plurality of inputs of the selection block.” The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate support for this limitation.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “select only one of the analog signals to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time, wherein the selected only one of the analog signals provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than the plurality of analog signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block.” The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate support for this limitation.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “select only one of the digital signals to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time, wherein the selected only one of the digital signals provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than the plurality of digital signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block.” The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate support for this limitation.
Accordingly, Claims 17-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-15 are amended.
Claims 6 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, regarding Claim Rejections under Nonstatutory Double Patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because a terminal disclaimer was not filed.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9, regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 8 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-10, regarding the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that Roger does not teach the claimed “selection block” because the controller 50 + DSP 40 of Roger uses software instructions, and therefore does not include the structural couplings of hardware recited in Claim 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that “selection block” is a broad term and can include hardware, software, or a combination of the two. Examiner also notes that the specification of the instant application states that the selection block can be “a multiplexor in hardware or software” ([0061]). Additionally, Claim 11 recites inputs, outputs, and a control terminal as parts of the selection block. Fig. 9 of Roger shows controller 50 + DSP 40 with inputs and outputs, and the controller 50 may be implemented as a “processor such as a microcontroller” ([0029]), which is tantamount to a “control terminal.”
Applicant appears to argue that Roger ‘394 does not teach “selecting only one of the chirps” because Roger ‘394 does teaches selecting transmitted chirps instead of received chirps. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner asserts that Roger teaches transmitting and receiving chirps ([0033]), and selecting a portion of the received data ([0045]). However, Roger does not explicitly teach that the selected portion of data is a portion of chirps. Roger ‘394 teaches selecting chirps, including selecting only one chirp, to reduce interference and improve processing efficiency (Roger ‘394 [0007]; [0042]). Examiner asserts that the combined teaching of Roger and Roger ‘394 would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply chirp-level selection to the received chirp data of Roger in order to reduce interference and improve processing efficiency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 7 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,996,311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1 and 8 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 7 and 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 10,996,311.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, Claim 7 of U.S. 10,996,311 recites a method comprising receiving a respective back-scattered signal from at least one radar target, compressing the frequency domain data to form compressed frequency domain data … wherein third values, of the frequency domain data, that are not associated with the peaks and the frequencies neighboring the peaks, are discarded based on compressing the frequency domain data, and transmitting the compressed frequency domain data via a communication link. Therefore Claim 7 of U.S. 10,996,311 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the Claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Claim 8 of the instant application, Claim 1 of U.S. 10,996,311 recites a system comprising a receiver configured to receive a respective back-scattered signal from at least one radar target, a processor configured to … compress the frequency domain data to form compressed frequency domain data … wherein third values, of the frequency domain data, that are not associated with the peaks and the frequencies neighboring the peaks, are discarded based on compressing the frequency domain data, and a central radar signal processing unit connected to the at least one radar sensor via a communication, wherein the central radar signal processing unit is configured to receive the compressed frequency domain data via the communication link. Therefore Claim 1 of U.S. 10,996,311 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the Claim 8 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roger (US 2019/0041494).
Regarding Claim 11, Roger discloses: A device for processing radar signals, comprising:
a plurality of receiving antenna ports ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”),
a plurality of mixers each having a receive input, a local oscillator input, and an output, wherein the receive inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to the plurality of receiving antenna ports, respectively, and the local oscillator inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to a local oscillator terminal ([0028]: “mixers for the down conversion of RF signals (e.g. the received signal yRF(t), see FIG. 1)”; local oscillator”; Fig. 4);
a plurality of amplifier and filter units each having an input and an output, the inputs of the plurality of amplifier and filter units coupled to the outputs of the plurality of mixers, respectively ([0028]: “amplifiers”; [0029]: “filtering and amplification”; [0031]: “one or more filters”; Fig. 4); and
a selection block having a plurality of inputs, a control terminal, and an output, the plurality of inputs of the selection block being coupled to the outputs of the plurality of amplifier and filter units, respectively ([0045]: “The compression of the sensor data may be implemented in DSP 40 of each radar ECU”; [Fig. 9]: “controller 50 + DSP 40 (FFT and compression)”; Fig. 9 shows the inputs of controller 50 + DSP 40 coupled to MMICs 100 and 200, which include amplifier and filter units shown in Fig. 4.), and the control terminal of the selection block configured to control selection of the plurality of inputs of the selection block to the output of the selection block ([0045]: “The compression of the sensor data may be implemented in DSP 40 of each radar ECU”).
Regarding Claim 14, Roger discloses: wherein the control terminal of the selection block selects an input from the plurality of inputs of the selection block based on a deterministic selection scheme ([0045]: “thresholding technique”; [0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”).
Regarding Claim 15, Roger discloses: the device further comprising:
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) having an input and an output, the input of the ADC coupled to the output of the selection block ([0029]: “analog-to-digital converters 30”; Fig. 13); and
a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) unit having an input coupled to the output of the ADC ([0029]: “…and further processed in the digital domain (see FIG. 3, digital signal processing chain implemented, e.g., in digital signal processor 40).”; Fig. 9; Fig. 13).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494) in view of Jansen (US 2020/0072941).
Regarding Claim 1, Roger discloses: A first radar unit comprising:
plurality of receiving antenna ports configured to receive radar signals via a plurality of receiving antennas, the received radar signals including a plurality of chirps ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”);
a plurality of mixers each having a receive input, a local oscillator input, and an output, wherein the receive inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to the plurality of receiving antenna ports, respectively, and the local oscillator inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to a local oscillator terminal ([0028]: “mixers for the down conversion of RF signals (e.g. the received signal yRF(t), see FIG. 1)”; local oscillator”; Fig. 4);
a plurality of amplifier and filter units each having an input and an output, the inputs of the plurality of amplifier and filter units coupled to the outputs of the plurality of mixers, respectively ([0028]: “amplifiers”; [0029]: “filtering and amplification”; [0031]: “one or more filters”; Fig. 4); and
a processor coupled to the plurality of amplifier and filter units ([0029]: “digital signal processor 40”; “system controller 50”) and configured to:
select a portion of … the received radar signals for further processing ([0006]: “compress the frequency domain data”; [0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”), and
convey a reduced amount of data to a second radar unit … ([0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded for the purpose of data transmission to the central radar post processing unit 8”).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen teaches:
select a portion of the plurality of chirps that is less than all of the plurality of chirps (Jansen [0076]: “indicates if the chirp has been identified as including interference, i.e. FLAG=1, or not, i.e. FLAG=0”; [0086]: “received chirps with severe interference may simply not be processed.”), and
convey a reduced amount of data to a second radar unit, wherein the reduced amount of data is based on the portion of the plurality of chirps (Jansen [0086]: “This information is then passed to MCU at 336 so that it can be used to process the data for the other receiver channels of the radar system … received chirps with severe interference may simply not be processed … Received chirps with no interference may be processed as normal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select a portion of the plurality of chirps and convey a reduced amount of data to a second radar unit based on the selected portion of chirps, as taught by Jansen. Modifying Roger to selecting a portion of chirps for further processing would be beneficial for improving interference mitigation (Jansen [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2, Roger discloses: wherein the first radar unit is a radar sensor electronic control unit ([0006]: “radar sensor”; [0041]: “radar ECU (electronic control unit)”; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Roger discloses: wherein the second radar unit is a central electronic control unit ([0006]: “central radar signal processing unit”; [0041]: “radar ECU (electronic control unit)”; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 4, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen teaches: wherein the portion of the plurality of chirps is selected on at least one of the following: a random basis, a pseudo-random basis, a deterministic selection scheme (Jansen [0075]: “the current chirp is compared with a threshold power value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select the portion of chirps using a deterministic solution, as taught by Jansen. Using a deterministic solution, such as a threshold, is beneficial for identifying chirps with interference and improving interference mitigation.
Regarding Claim 5, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen teaches: wherein information regarding the portion of the plurality of chirps is conveyed to the second radar unit (Jansen [0045]: “The radar sensor module 106 is connected to other higher level parts 108 of the overall radar system 100”; [0086]: “This information is then passed to MCU at 336”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and convey the chirp data to the second radar unit, as taught by Jansen. Conveying the data to additional units is beneficial for improving interference mitigation of further processing.
Regarding Claim 7, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen teaches: wherein the portion of the plurality of chirps comprises output data of an interference detection (Jansen [0009]: “detecting interference”; [0075]: “interfered chirp”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select a portion of chirps based on an interference detection, as taught by Jansen. Selecting radar signals or data that comprises an interference detection is beneficial for reducing interference in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 8, Roger discloses: A device ([0006]) comprising:
a plurality of receiving antenna ports configured to receive radar signals via a plurality of receiving antennas ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”);
a plurality of mixers each having a receive input, a local oscillator input, and an output, wherein the receive inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to the plurality of receiving antenna ports, respectively, and the local oscillator inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to a local oscillator terminal ([0028]: “mixers for the down conversion of RF signals (e.g. the received signal yRF(t), see FIG. 1)”; local oscillator”; Fig. 4);
a plurality of amplifier and filter units each having an input and an output, the inputs of the plurality of amplifier and filter units coupled to the outputs of the plurality of mixers, respectively ([0028]: “amplifiers”; [0029]: “filtering and amplification”; [0031]: “one or more filters”; Fig. 4); and
a processing unit coupled to the plurality of amplifier and filter units ([0029]: “digital signal processor 40”; “system controller 50”), the processing unit configured to:
select a portion of the received radar signals or of data that is based on the received radar signals for further processing ([0006]: “compress the frequency domain data”; [0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”),
convey a reduced amount of data to a second radar unit, wherein the reduced amount of data is based on the portion of the received radar signals or of data that is based on the received radar signals ([0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded for the purpose of data transmission to the central radar post processing unit 8”); and …
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen teaches:
provide a selection code to the second radar unit, the selection code specifying which received radar signals or data have been omitted in the reduced amount of data conveyed to the second radar unit and/or which received radar signals or data have been processed in the reduced amount of data conveyed to the second radar unit (Jansen [0086]: “This information is then passed to MCU at 336 so that it can be used to process the data for the other receiver channels of the radar system … received chirps with severe interference may simply not be processed … Received chirps with no interference may be processed as normal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and provide a selection code specifying the reduced amount of data to the second radar unit, as taught by Jansen. Specifying which data has been selected and omitted is beneficial for improving interference mitigation (Jansen [0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, Roger discloses: wherein said device is a first radar unit ([0006]: “radar sensor”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Szajnowski (US 2010/0141504).
Regarding Claim 12, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Szajnowski teaches: wherein the control terminal of the selection block selects an input from the plurality of inputs of the selection block based on a random basis (Szajnowski [0015]: “The sub-chirps may be suitably selected following a random or pseudorandom pattern”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select inputs based on a random basis, as taught by Szajnowski. Selecting inputs on a random basis is beneficial for reducing interference in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 13, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Szajnowski teaches: wherein the control terminal of the selection block selects an input from the plurality of inputs of the selection block based on a pseudo-random basis (Szajnowski [0015]: “The sub-chirps may be suitably selected following a random or pseudorandom pattern”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select inputs based on a pseudo-random basis, as taught by Szajnowski. Selecting inputs on a pseudo-random basis is beneficial for reducing interference in radar systems.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Mani (US 2017/0054449).
Regarding Claim 16, Roger teaches: … the selection block … having N inputs and a single output, wherein N is three or more ([0041]: “one or more MMICs 100, 200, etc.,”; Fig. 9).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Mani teaches: wherein the selection block is a multiplexor (Main [0106]: “The multiplexor 2032 is configurable to select between signals received in the input buffer 2036 and signals generated by the RFSYNTH 2030.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and use a multiplexer for the selection block, as taught by Mani. Multiplexers are considered ordinary and well-known for selecting and distributing signals.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Roger ‘394 (US 2017/0131394).
Regarding Claim 17, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Roger ‘394 teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to receive a plurality of chirps on the plurality of inputs of the selection block for a given time, and select only one of the chirps to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time (Roger ‘394 [0042]: “at least one third of the chirp pulses may be omitted, i.e. the ratio (M−K)/M may be at least 1/3. In some embodiments the ratio (M−K)/M may up to 2/3 or even more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and receive a plurality of chirps at a given time, and select only one of the chirps to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time, as taught by Roger ‘394. Selecting only one chirp is beneficial for reducing interference (e.g., cross-talk) in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 18, Roger teaches: wherein the selected … provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than … the plurality of inputs of the selection block ([0007]: “configured to reduce the first data rate to obtain the digital radar signal with a second data rate, which is lower than the first data rate.”).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Roger ‘394 teaches: …the selected only one of the chirps provided to the output of the selection block … (Roger ‘394 [0042]: “at least one third of the chirp pulses may be omitted, i.e. the ratio (M−K)/M may be at least 1/3. In some embodiments the ratio (M−K)/M may up to 2/3 or even more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and select only one of the chirps to provide to the output of the selection block, as taught by Roger ‘394. Selecting only one chirp is beneficial for reducing interference (e.g., cross-talk) in radar systems.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Valentine (US 2017/0285135).
Regarding Claim 19, Roger teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to receive a plurality of … signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block for a given time, and select … signals to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time, wherein the selected … signals provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than the plurality of … signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block ([0007]: “configured to reduce the first data rate to obtain the digital radar signal with a second data rate, which is lower than the first data rate.”).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Valentine teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to receive a plurality of analog signals and select only one of the analog signals to provide to the output of the selection block (Valentine [0005]: “a switch ... configured to select one of the high-band intermediate frequency signal and the low-band-frequency signal as an output intermediate-frequency signal.”; [0051]: “digitizing the IF with an analog-to-digital converter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and configure the selection block to receive a plurality of analog signals and to select only one of the analog signals, as taught by Valentine. Selecting analog signals is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and modifying Roger to select analog signals comprises simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Selecting only one chirp is beneficial for reducing interference in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 20, Roger teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to receive a plurality of digital signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block for a given time, and select … digital signals to provide to the output of the selection block at the given time, wherein the selected … digital signals provided to the output of the selection block consumes less bandwidth than the plurality of digital signals on the plurality of inputs of the selection block ([0007]: “configured to reduce the first data rate to obtain the digital radar signal with a second data rate, which is lower than the first data rate.”; [0029]: “digital signal processor 40”; [0048]: “reduction/compression of data”).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Roger ‘394 teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to … select only one of the digital signals to provide to the output of the selection block (Valentine [0005]: “a switch ... configured to select one of the high-band intermediate frequency signal and the low-band-frequency signal as an output intermediate-frequency signal.”; [0051]: “digitizing the IF with an analog-to-digital converter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roger and configure the selection block to select only one of the digital signals, as taught by Valentine. Selecting only one chirp is beneficial for reducing interference in radar systems.
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 NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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 on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648