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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-11, and 11 recite the limitation “bit frequency”. While this phrase can normally be interpreted to refer to a “bitrate” or “data rate” as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, page 18 line 17 of the specification recites the variable fbeat, 1 in reference to “the first bit frequency”. As such, Examiner assumes that each instance of “bit frequency” as recited in the claims is meant to refer to a “beat frequency”.
In light of that notion, referring to claims 1 and 14, it is unclear what is meant by “determine a first bit frequency between an (n-1)-th frame corresponding to a first preceding location of the target and an (n-2)-th frame corresponding to a second preceding location of the target, determine a second bit frequency between an n-th frame corresponding to a current location of the target and the (n-1)-th frame”. It is unclear whether this refers to a difference between bit/beat frequencies associated with different frames, a single bit/beat frequency associated with multiple frames, or something else. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite. Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
Specification
Examiner is issuing an objection to the specification.
Throughout the specification, the phrase “bit frequency” is used. While this phrase can normally be interpreted to refer to a “bitrate” or “data rate” as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, page 18 line 17 of the specification recites the variable fbeat, 1 in reference to “the first bit frequency”. As such, Examiner assumes that each instance of “bit frequency” as recited in the claims is meant to refer to a “beat frequency”.
In light of that notion, referring to page 3 lines 17-22, it is unclear what is meant by “determine a first bit frequency between an (n-1)-th frame corresponding to a first preceding location of the target and an (n-2)-th frame corresponding to a second preceding location of the target, determine a second bit frequency between an n-th frame corresponding to a current location of the target and the (n-1)-th frame”. The concept of a bit frequency between frames is evoked multiple times throughout the specification. It is unclear whether this concept refers to a difference between bit/beat frequencies associated with different frames, a single bit/beat frequency associated with multiple frames, or something else.
The specification is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors. As such, Examiner is issuing an objection to the specification, and urges Applicant to submit a new version wherein all terminology is appropriate and clearly describes the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Stefanatos et al. (US 20250020762 A1) describes an object detection system utilizing the analysis of successive radar frames to detect and remove ghost targets, wherein beat signals are transmitted (paras. 99 and 107).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648