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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuehler et al. (Schuehler, DE102024205115 translation).
Referring to Claim 1, Schuehler teaches in a first mode (sampling process) of operation of the radar system, determining a channel response characterizing behavior of self-interference between the transmitter channel and the receiver channel; and in a second mode (non-sampling scanning process) of operation of the radar system, modifying a received signal based on the channel response; ([0012-0017] as well as Fig. 2 and [0061], the removal of the influence of the self-interference signal is interpreted as modifying the signal based on the channel response).
Referring to Claims 2, 10 and 14, Schuehler teaches determining the channel response comprises: transmitting a test signal; and determining the first channel response based on a signal received in response to the test signal; [0010-0013].
Referring to Claims 5 and 17, Schuehler teaches wherein modifying the received signal comprises: generating a self-interference cancellation signal based on the channel response; and modifying the received signal based on the self-interference cancellation signal; [0012-0017].
Referring to Claim 9, Schuehler teaches in a calibration mode of operation of a radar system, determining characteristics of a self- interference cancellation signal of the radar system based on a channel response characterizing behavior of self-interference between a transmitter channel and a receiver channel of the radar system; and in a sensing mode of operation of the radar system, modifying a received signal based on the determined characteristics of the self-interference cancellation signal; see citations of Claim 1 above.
Referring to Claim 13, Schuehler teaches a transmitter channel and a receiver channel (Fig. 1 #1; [0042-0043]); and a processor ([0034]) configured to: in a first mode of operation, determine a channel response characterizing behavior of self-interference between the transmitter channel and the receiver channel; and in a second mode of operation of the radar system, modify a first received signal based on the channel response; see citations of Claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuehler in view of Cope et al. (Cope, US Pat. 5,689,267).
Referring to Claims 3 and 15, Schuehler teaches transmitting a sense signal in the second mode of operation; but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the test signal is a lower power signal than the sense signal.
However, Cope teaches wherein the test signal is a lower power signal than the sense signal; Col. 3 ln 43-56.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schuehler with the lower power signal as taught by Cope so as to predictably provide a reduced energy usage of the system during as well as aid in providing threshold values for system operations.
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, 11, 12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuehler in view of Cheung et al. (Cheung, US PGPub 2018/0309474).
Referring to Claim 4, Schuehler teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit setting the test signal to a specified power level in the first mode of operation by setting one or more of an amplifier setting, an intermediate frequency gain setting, and a gain setting of a radio frequency (RF) subsystem of the radar system.
However, Cheung teaches setting the test signal to a specified power level in the first mode of operation by setting one or more of an amplifier setting, an intermediate frequency gain setting, and a gain setting of a radio frequency (RF) subsystem of the radar system; Fig. 3 #303; [0051-0052] power settings are also implicit features of power amplifiers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cope with the power level setting as taught by Cheung as the power level setting predictably aids in the leakage cancellation scheme allowing for the avoidance of ghost targets.
Referring to Claims 6 and 11, Schuehler as modified by Cheung teaches wherein reconstructing the self-interference cancellation signal comprises: determining a set of self-interference channel coefficients based on the first channel response; and reconstructing the self-interference cancellation signal based on the self-interference channel coefficients; [0065-0070] of Cheung.
Referring to Claims 7, 12 and 19, Schuehler as modified by Cheung teaches wherein determining the set of self-interference channel coefficients comprises: determining the set of self-interference channel coefficients based on a cyclic correlation between the test signal and the corresponding signal received in response to the test signal; implicitly taught with use of #306; [0051-0054] of Cheung.
Referring to Claims 8 and 20, Schuehler as modified by Cheung teaches wherein modifying the first received signal comprises modifying the first received signal at an analog path of the radar system prior to converting the first received signal to a digital signal in the second mode of operation; See Fig. 3 #316 and placed before the ADC #312 of Cheung.
Referring to Claim 18, Schuehler as modified by Cheung teaches wherein the processor is to reconstruct the self-interference cancellation signal by: determining a set of self-interference channel coefficients based on the first channel response; and reconstructing the self-interference cancellation signal based on the self-interference channel coefficients; [0065-0070] of Cheung.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuehler as modified by Cope in view of Cheung.
Referring to Claim 16, Schuehler as modified by Cope teach the limitations of Claim 15, but do not explicitly disclose nor limit set the test signal to a specified power level in the first mode of operation by setting one or more of an amplifier setting, an intermediate frequency gain setting, and a gain setting a radio frequency subsystem of the radar system.
However, Cheung teaches setting the test signal to a specified power level in the first mode of operation by setting one or more of an amplifier setting, an intermediate frequency gain setting, and a gain setting of a radio frequency (RF) subsystem of the radar system; Fig. 3 #303; [0051-0052] power settings are also implicit features of power amplifiers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cope with the power level setting as taught by Cheung as the power level setting predictably aids in the leakage cancellation scheme allowing for the avoidance of ghost targets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights