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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed August 13, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 previously stated for the original claims 1-20 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to the section titled Response to the § 101 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the Non-Final Rejection filed August 13, 2025, has been withdrawn.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 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.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230057179; hereinafter Kim, already of record), in view of Gulati et al. (US 20190391247; hereinafter Gulati).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kim teaches
A method (Kim: Abstract) comprising:
receiving, at a computing system, radio frequency interference (RFI) data and location data from one or more vehicles or infrastructure locations, (Kim: Paragraph [0016]; “The base station may build a global jamming map based on the collected information. For example, local jamming reports from multiple vehicles pointing to a similar geographical coordinate may suggest the location of a stationary jammer.” [0044]; “The local jamming information 230, 235, 240, etc., received from one or more of the vehicles 205 and RSU 111 may be collected and/or received at a base station 110 via the Uu interface 108 (as shown in FIG. 1).”) the RFI data representing RFI parameters estimated by each vehicle during navigation or by each infrastructure location, (Kim: Paragraph [0043]; “Although the vehicles 215 and 225 may not be able to connect to each other via the PC5 interface 109 channel, they may still connect with the base station 110 using the Uu interface 108 (as shown in FIG. 1), and submit local jamming information that includes details usable by the base station 110 (and more particularly, usable by the base station server(s) 170 as shown in FIG. 1) to build a global jamming map based on collected reports (e.g., local jamming information 230, 235, and 240) received from the vehicles 215 and 225, respectively.”) ...
aggregating, based on the location data, the RFI data to generate a representation that indicates a power level (Kim: Paragraph [0048]; “The global jamming map 300 can include jamming frequency information 305 in the form of a resource block spectrogram indicative of an observed signal strength in time frequency space.” Signal strength of a frequency is equivalent to power level of said frequency.) and a frequency sub-band for RFI detected at one or more locations; (Kim: Paragraph [0047]; “The local jamming reports can include jamming frequency information 305 and jamming location information 310, including attack time and localization information 315A correlated with jamming localization information 315A, 315B, . . . 315N.”; [0048]; “The global jamming map 300 can include jamming frequency information 305 in the form of a resource block spectrogram indicative of an observed signal strength in time frequency space. Jamming location information 310 can include a GPS coordinate trace corresponding to the resource block spectrogram shown in the jamming frequency information 305.”)
obtaining, at the computing system, a location from a vehicle; (Kim: Paragraph [0045]; “...the vehicles reporting the jamming information may be uniquely identified and provide time and location information to the base station 110 that may be usable for generating a global jamming map that identifies an identification of a jamming device or devices, with approximate locations for any type of stationary and/or mobile jammer.”) and
providing, by the computing system and to the vehicle, at least a portion of the representation based on the location of the vehicle, (Kim: Paragraph [0052], [0055]) ...
Kim does not teach,
...
...wherein the RFI data includes waveform metadata from one or more vehicle radar systems;
...
...wherein the vehicle is configured to modify vehicle radar operations based on the provided representation.
However in the same field of endeavor, Gulati teaches,
...
...wherein the RFI data includes waveform metadata from one or more vehicle radar systems; (Gulati: Paragraph [0064]; “In some cases, a UE 120 may transmit a radar waveform to detect nearby UEs 120. However, if these other UEs 120 also transmit radar waveforms to detect target devices, the multiple radar sources may result in interference and poor detection performance. To mitigate such issues, each UE 120 may transmit indications of the waveform parameters used by that UE 120, such that the nearby UEs 120 can identify the other radar waveforms and reduce the interference caused by these radar waveforms.”)
...
...wherein the vehicle is configured to modify vehicle radar operations based on the provided representation. (Gulati: Paragraph [0064]; “Based on the identified parameters for radar waveforms transmitted in close proximity to a UE 120 (e.g., within a certain geographic range, with received signal powers above a certain threshold, etc.), the UE 120 may select its own radar waveform parameters to reduce mutual interference with the detected radar waveforms.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle radar system of Kim with the waveform metadata and radar system modification of Gulati for the benefit of enabling coexistence of multiple radars by suppressing mutual interference in a system. (Gulati: Paragraph [0005])
Regarding Claim 10,
Kim, in view of Gulati, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the RFI data into the representation comprises:
generating a RFI heat map, wherein the RFI heat map aligns the RFI data with roads used by the plurality of vehicles; (Kim: Paragraph [0047]; “Global jamming mapping can include collecting the local jamming information from the vehicles 205 as they pass within range of the stationary jammer 200 and report to the local jamming information to the base station 110.”) and
estimating, based on trends in RFI data, a position of a stationary RFI source; (Kim: Paragraph [0050]; “The multiple jamming reports from the vehicles travelling in the geographically close distance suggest the existence of mobile jammer in the vicinity if they observe that the similar frequency channel is occupied over the longer period than a given threshold.”, [0051]; “The multiple local jamming information 230, 235, and 240, etc. (as shown in FIG. 2) may be received from the vehicles travelling in the geographically close distance with respect to the mobile jammer 210 and the stationary jammer 200, which may suggest the existence and static or changing locations of the jamming devices, respectively.”) and
wherein generating the RFI heat map comprises:
generating the RFI heat map such that the RFI heat map conveys the estimated position of the stationary RFI source. (Kim: Paragraph [0045]-[0046]; “The base station 110 may receive a plurality of local mapping information (depicted in FIG. 2) and use the local jamming reports to generate a global jamming map.”)
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A system... (Kim: Paragraph [0021]; “The automotive computer 145 may be or include an electronic vehicle controller, having one or more processor(s) 150 and memory 155.”)
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A non-transitory computer readable medium... (Kim: Paragraph [0026]; “The memory 155 may be a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a collaborative jamming detection program code.”)
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 2, 6-9, 14, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Gulati, as applied to claims 1, 10, 16, and 20, above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US 20140378179; hereinafter Nagai, already of record).
Regarding Claim 2,
Kim, in view of Gulati, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the power levels, (Kim: Paragraph [0048]; Signal Strength) the frequency sub-bands,... (Kim: Paragraph [0047]; “The local jamming reports can include jamming frequency information 305 and jamming location information 310, including attack time and localization information 315A correlated with jamming localization information 315A, 315B, . . . 315N.”; [0048]; “The global jamming map 300 can include jamming frequency information 305 in the form of a resource block spectrogram indicative of an observed signal strength in time frequency space. Jamming location information 310 can include a GPS coordinate trace corresponding to the resource block spectrogram shown in the jamming frequency information 305.”)
Kim, in view of Gulati, does not teach
...one or more lines of bearing, and waveform parameters for RFI detected at the one or more locations based on RFI data received from one or more vehicles navigating at the one or more locations; and
aggregating the RFI data to generate the representation further comprises:
generating the representation to further indicate the waveform parameters and one or more lines of bearing for RFI detected at the one or more locations.
However in the same field of endeavor, Nagai teaches
...one or more lines of bearing, (Nagai: Paragraph [0048]; “It is possible to grasp a radio communication zone that is a coverage of the radar wave by using the range and the setting position information described above. The "cycle/direction" indicates the service cycle of the radar (cycle at which the radar wave is transmitted) and directivity during a service (direction in which the radar wave is transmitted).”; [0054], FIG. 5) and waveform parameters (Nagai: Paragraph [0048], FIG. 3B; “The "cycle/direction" indicates the service cycle of the radar (cycle at which the radar wave is transmitted) and directivity during a service (direction in which the radar wave is transmitted).”) for RFI detected at the one or more locations based on RFI data received from one or more vehicles navigating at the one or more locations; (Nagai: Paragraph [0050], FIG. 3B; “Detection Position” and “Detection Coordinates”) and
aggregating the RFI data to generate the representation further comprises:
generating the representation to further indicate the waveform parameters (Nagai: Paragraph [0049]-[0050], FIG. 3A-3B) and one or more lines of bearing for RFI detected at the one or more locations. (Nagai: Paragraph [0054], FIG. 5)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the aggregated RFI data of Kim, in view of Gulati, with the additional RFI data of Nagai for the benefit of reducing ... interference with other systems, such as a radar, that use the same frequency band. (Nagai: Paragraph [0020])
Regarding Claim 6,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving RFI data and location data from one or more vehicles or infrastructure locations comprises:
receiving, from each vehicle, first RFI data representing parameters used by a vehicle radar system to transmit radar signals and location data representing a direction of travel of the vehicle. (Nagai: Paragraph [0034]; “The radio-communication-zone predicting unit 15 can discriminate the presence or absence of a system subjected to interference taking into account, in addition to the present position, the map data 14, and the interference data 13, the speed detected by the vehicle-speed detecting unit 12 and the traveling direction calculated on the basis of the detection result history by the present-position detecting unit 11.”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Nagai is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 7,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The method of claim 6, wherein the first RFI data representing parameters used by the vehicle radar system to transmit radar signals comprises:
transmission waveform metadata representing waveform and frequency sub-band parameters used by the vehicle radar system to transmit radar signals. (Nagai: Paragraph [0048]; “The "clear channel list/priority" indicates the radio frequency bands not interfering with the radar wave from the radar station (a list of clear channels, which are non-interfering channels) and priority of use of the clear channels. The priority of use is determined to be, for example, higher for a clear channel with low noise power received by the channel (frequency).”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Nagai, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The method of claim 7, wherein receiving RFI data and location data from the plurality of vehicles further comprises:
receiving second RFI data corresponding to external RFI detected by the vehicle radar system on each vehicle, wherein the external RFI originates from an emitter that is positioned remotely from the vehicle. (Kim: Paragraph [0045]; “The collaborative jamming detection system 107 (as shown in FIG. 1) may collect local jamming information 230, 235, 240, etc. from the vehicles and RSUs [Road Side Units] 111 experiencing connectivity issues due to the malicious attackers.”; [0054]; “At step 610, the base station 110 may further receive local jamming information from RSUs 111 that can include, for example, a reporter identification (ID) that uniquely identifies a reporting RSU, an RB spectrogram, GPS trace, time information, etc., the base station may generate a global jamming determination 615 based on a global jamming map (not shown in FIG. 6).”)
Regarding Claim 9,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The method of claim 8, wherein the second RFI data corresponding to external RFI signals comprises:
received waveform metadata representing waveform and frequency sub-band parameters estimated for the external RFI signals and location data representing an estimated position for the emitter that is positioned remotely from the vehicle. (Kim: Paragraph [0054]; “At step 610, the base station 110 may further receive local jamming information from RSUs 111 that can include, for example, a reporter identification (ID) that uniquely identifies a reporting RSU, an RB spectrogram, GPS trace, time information, etc., the base station may generate a global jamming determination 615 based on a global jamming map (not shown in FIG. 6).”)
Regarding Claim 14,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining map data representing positions of roads and buildings; (Nagai: Paragraph [0040], [0043]) and
wherein aggregating the RFI data into a representation based on the location data comprises:
associating the RFI data with the map data such that the representation conveys RFI intensity relative to roads and buildings. (Nagai: Paragraph [0053], FIG. 4; “In FIG. 4, a place of departure 51, a place of arrival 52, the vehicle 3 including the in-vehicle terminal 1 shown in FIG. 1, a radio communication zone 57 indicating a radio wave interference range, which is the coverage of the radio wave transmitted by the radio communication unit 16 of the in-vehicle terminal 1 included in the vehicle 3, a plurality of buildings 53 indicated by rectangles, radio communication zones 54A, 54B, and 54C of other systems such as radars, a conventional route guidance result 55, and a route guidance result 56 for minimizing a distance, time, fuel consumption, and the like while avoiding mutual interference between the radio communication zones 54A, 54B, and 55C of other systems and the radio communication zone 57 are shown”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Nagai, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 18,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is further configured to: monitor RFI data relative to a RFI threshold for a given location; (Nagai: Paragraph [0048]; “The "detection position/detection coordinates" indicates the position where the vehicle 3 (the own vehicle) or another vehicle detects the radar station. ... The "frequency band" indicates the frequency band and the band width used by the radar station. The "allowable signal intensity" indicates the amount of signal power at which the radar station determines that mutual interference occurs.”) and
responsive to subsequent RFI data for the given location exceeding the RFI threshold for the given location, trigger an alert for the given location. (Nagai: Paragraph [0048]; “When the radar station receives a signal exceeding the allowable signal intensity, the radar station determines that mutual interference occurs.” The system sends a signal (i.e. alert) to the radar station when it detects that the “allowable signal intensity” (i.e. RFI threshold) has been exceeded.)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Nagai, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Gulati, as applied to claims 1, 10, 16, and 20, above, and further in view of Kunjar et al. (US 20200296659: hereinafter Kunjar, already of record).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kim, in view of Gulati, teaches
The method of claim 1,...
Kim, in view of Gulati, does not teach
...further comprising:
receiving additional RFI data and location data from one or more vehicles or infrastructure locations;
modifying the representation based on the additional RFI data and location data; and
providing at least a portion of the modified representation to one or more vehicles.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kunjar teaches
...further comprising:
receiving additional RFI data and location data from one or more vehicles or infrastructure locations; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0026]; “The collaborative network server 206 may store the information on detected radar interference collected from vehicle 201, vehicle 203, and other vehicles into a centralized database.”)
modifying the representation based on the additional RFI data and location data; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0026]; “In one embodiment, as the operating parameters of existing radars are modified, new radars come online, or old radars are taken out of service, the crowd-sourced database may be updated or overwritten. Information that has not been updated for a threshold period of time may be declared outdated and may be pruned from the database.”) and
providing at least a portion of the modified representation to one or more vehicles. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0031]; “The local database may be built up by the vehicle 301 over time to contain a local knowledge base of geo-tagged and time-stamped radar zones. At a later time, when the vehicle 301 approaches the range of radar operation 207 of the radar 205 at a location 303, the WLAN device may query the local database based on its current GPS coordinates at location 303 to receive a warning of the nearby radar interference.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the RFI mitigation method of Kim, in view of Gulati, with the additional RFI data and representation modification of Kunjar for the benefit of minimizing the probability of radar interference by using aiding information. (Kunjar: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 4,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the location from the vehicle comprises:
receiving, from the vehicle, data specifying a route planned for the vehicle; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0029]; “In one embodiment, if the path of the vehicle is already selected, e.g., using an onboard navigation system, the vehicle may consult the centralized database to predict the possible zones of radar interference along the path.”)
based on the route planned for the vehicle, identifying a portion of the representation that aligns with the route for the vehicle; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0030]) and
providing the portion of the representation to the vehicle. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0031])
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Kunjar, is the same as stated for Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining, based on the portion of the representation, mitigation instructions for the vehicle to use during navigation of the route, wherein the mitigation instructions depend on RFI parameters estimated by one or more vehicles positioned along the route; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0026]; “The collaborative network server 206 may store the information on detected radar interference collected from vehicle 201, vehicle 203, and other vehicles into a centralized database. The crowd-sourced database may thus represent the estimated boundaries of the ranges of a plurality of radar zones expressed in GPS coordinates, the DFS channels over which the radars are expected to operate, and the estimated time of their operation.”) and
providing the mitigation instructions in addition to the portion of the representation to the vehicle. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0031]; “In one embodiment, if the path of the vehicle 301 is known, the WLAN device may consult the local database to predict the possible zones of radar interference and to select a DFS channel that is expected to cause the least or no radar interference.”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Kunjar, is the same as stated for Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 11,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 10, wherein obtaining the location from the vehicle comprises:
receiving, from the vehicle, data specifying a route planned for the vehicle; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0029]; “In one embodiment, if the path of the vehicle is already selected, e.g., using an onboard navigation system, the vehicle may consult the centralized database to predict the possible zones of radar interference along the path.”) and
wherein providing at least the portion of the representation comprises:
providing data representing respective portions of the RFI heat map based on the route planned for the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configured to adjust radar operations or the route based on the data representing respective portions of the RFI heat map. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0031]; “In one embodiment, if the path of the vehicle 301 is known, the WLAN device may consult the local database to predict the possible zones of radar interference and to select a DFS channel that is expected to cause the least or no radar interference.”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Kunjar, is the same as stated for Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving additional RFI data and location data from one or more vehicles or infrastructure locations; (Kim: Paragraph [0047])
modifying the RFI heat map; (Kim: Paragraph [0048]) and
identifying one or more trends for RFI data at one or more locations based on modifying the RFI heat map, wherein a trend indicates a change in RFI at a given location based on a particular time of day. (Kim: Paragraph [0050]; “The global map (not shown in FIG. 4) may include the jamming frequency information 415, among other information such as the attack time information (shown in FIG. 3 as the attack time and localization information 315A correlated with attack time and localization information 315A, 315B, . . . 315N) that indicate similar frequency channel occupation over a period of time that exceeds a threshold for time 420.”)
Regarding Claim 13,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
based on the one or more trends for RFI data at one or more locations, providing mitigation instructions to one or more vehicles traveling proximate the one or more locations. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0027]; “In one embodiment, the collaborative network server 206 may analyze the operating characteristics of radar zones contained in the centralized database to suggest a DFS channel that minimizes the probability of radar interference based on the location and time of a querying vehicle. In one embodiment, a vehicle may periodically send its current GPS coordinates to the collaborative network server 206 to receive information on any possible approaching radar zones. If the information indicates a radar zone is approaching, the vehicle may proactively switch to a DFS channel to steer clear of any radar interference.” Changing the DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) based on the presence of potential radar interference is the mitigation instruction.)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Kunjar, is the same as stated for Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 15,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Kunjar, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the vehicle, data specifying a route planned for the vehicle; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0029]; “In one embodiment, if the path of the vehicle is already selected, e.g., using an onboard navigation system, the vehicle may consult the centralized database to predict the possible zones of radar interference along the path.”)
based on the route planned for the vehicle and the representation, determining a first frequency band for use by the vehicle during navigation of a first portion of the route (Kunjar: Paragraph [0027]; “In one embodiment, the collaborative network server 206 may analyze the operating characteristics of radar zones contained in the centralized database to suggest a DFS channel that minimizes the probability of radar interference based on the location and time of a querying vehicle. In one embodiment, a vehicle may periodically send its current GPS coordinates to the collaborative network server 206 to receive information on any possible approaching radar zones. If the information indicates a radar zone is approaching, the vehicle may proactively switch to a DFS channel to steer clear of any radar interference.”) and a second frequency band for use by the vehicle during navigation of a second portion of the route; (Kunjar: Paragraph [0027]; “In one embodiment, the collaborative network server 206 may analyze the operating characteristics of radar zones contained in the centralized database to suggest a DFS channel that minimizes the probability of radar interference based on the location and time of a querying vehicle. In one embodiment, a vehicle may periodically send its current GPS coordinates to the collaborative network server 206 to receive information on any possible approaching radar zones. If the information indicates a radar zone is approaching, the vehicle may proactively switch to a DFS channel to steer clear of any radar interference.”) and
providing mitigation instructions to the vehicle, wherein the mitigation instructions specify the first frequency band for use by the vehicle during navigation of the first portion of the route and the second frequency band for use by the vehicle during navigation of the second portion of the route. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0027]; “In one embodiment, the collaborative network server 206 may analyze the operating characteristics of radar zones contained in the centralized database to suggest a DFS channel that minimizes the probability of radar interference based on the location and time of a querying vehicle. In one embodiment, a vehicle may periodically send its current GPS coordinates to the collaborative network server 206 to receive information on any possible approaching radar zones. If the information indicates a radar zone is approaching, the vehicle may proactively switch to a DFS channel to steer clear of any radar interference.”)
The motivation to combine Kim, Gulati, and Kunjar, is the same as stated for Claim 3 above.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Gulati, as applied to claims 1, 10, 16, and 20, above, and further in view of Yanagihara et al. (US 20110304498; hereinafter Yanagihara, already of record).
Regarding Claim 17,
Kim, in view of Gulati, teaches
The system of claim 16,...
Kim, in view of Gualti, does not teach
...wherein the representation is a RFI heat map that uses a plurality of colors to visually convey the power level and the frequency sub-band at respective locations.
However in the same field of endeavor, Yanagihara teaches
...wherein the representation is a RFI heat map that uses a plurality of colors to visually convey the power level and the frequency sub-band at respective locations. (Yanagihara: Paragraph [0065]-[0067], FIG. 21-23)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim, in view of Gulati, with the RFI heat map of Yanagihara for the benefit of enhancing contrast and enable classification of objects in a coherent radar system. (Yanagihara: Paragraph [0067])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, as applied to claims 2, 6-9, 14, and 18, above, and further in view of Kunjar.
Regarding Claim 19,
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, teaches
The system of claim 18,...
Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, does not teach
...wherein the computing device is further configured to:
based on the location of the vehicle corresponding to the given location, provide mitigation instructions to the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kunjar teaches
...wherein the computing device is further configured to:
based on the location of the vehicle corresponding to the given location, provide mitigation instructions to the vehicle. (Kunjar: Paragraph [0027]; “In one embodiment, the collaborative network server 206 may analyze the operating characteristics of radar zones contained in the centralized database to suggest a DFS channel that minimizes the probability of radar interference based on the location and time of a querying vehicle. In one embodiment, a vehicle may periodically send its current GPS coordinates to the collaborative network server 206 to receive information on any possible approaching radar zones. If the information indicates a radar zone is approaching, the vehicle may proactively switch to a DFS channel to steer clear of any radar interference.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the RFI mitigation method of Kim, in view of Gulati, and further in view of Nagai, with the mitigation instructions of Kunjar for the benefit of minimizing the probability of radar interference by using aiding information. (Kunjar: Abstract)
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights