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
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the informalities described below. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings (Figs. 1-5) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 because they depict illegible text. For example, Figs. 1-5 depict text which is blurry and incomprehensible. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing legibly. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0080 of the Specification recites, “In the embodiment illustrated by figure 5, two successive pulses of different frequencies are spaced apart by a repetition period TR (which is difficult to see in figure 5 because it is very small), and the pulses of a same frequency, in a same direction defined by the main lobe of the panel, are spaced apart by an ambiguous period Ta.”. The specification should not recite “(which is difficult to see in figure 5 because it is very small)”. Furthermore, the drawings need to be corrected so that everything in Fig. 5 is clearly legible (see Drawings objection above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2,4-6 and 9-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “by the acquisition of a plurality of observations…”. This limitation should recite, “by acquisition of a plurality of observations…”. The same objection applies to claim 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “of the echoes…”. This limitation should recite, “of echoes…”. The same objection applies to claim 10.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the interleaving pattern comprises a sequential transmission of the pulses of different transmission frequencies in a plurality of directions”. This limitation should recite “wherein the interleaving pattern comprises a sequential transmission of the plurality of pulses at different transmission frequencies in a plurality of directions”.
Claim 2 recites, “the pulses being spaced…” which should recite, “the plurality of pulses being spaced…” for clear antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites, “the pulses being spaced…” which should recite, “the plurality of pulses being spaced…” for clear antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is objected to as the symbols △G and △G appear to refer to the same variable; however, are written inconsistently.
Claim 6 recites, “on the pulses…” which should recite, “on pulses…”.
Claim 9 recites, “the pulses”, which should recites “the plurality of pulses” for clear antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is missing a semicolon after the limitation of “generate a plurality of pulses on a plurality of antenna panels of the detection device according to a temporal and angular interleaving pattern, so as to perform a scan over all of the relative bearing domain of the detection device”.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant to remove all references to drawing components that are within parenthesis in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 ejected 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.
Claim 2 recites, “the ambiguous period…”, which lacks clear antecedent basis and should recite “an ambiguous period”.
Claim 3 recites, “the ambiguous period…”, which lacks clear antecedent basis and should recite “an ambiguous period”.
Claim 4 recites, “the ambiguous period…”, which lacks clear antecedent basis and should recite “an ambiguous period”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 20190265353 A1), hereinafter Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses
Target characterisation method for a detection device of multi-panel radar or sonar type with electronic scanning (see Abstract, further see multi-panel design in Fig. 5A used to implement the transmission schemes disclosed), comprising the steps of:
- generating a plurality of pulses on a plurality of antenna panels (PE1, PE2, PE3) of the detection device according to a temporal and angular interleaving pattern, so as to perform a scan over all of the relative bearing domain of the detection device (see Fig. 5A, further see paragraph 0079, “FIG. 5A shows a square arrangement of transmitter elements distributed around a blocking element (not shown) such that a group of antenna elements may be selected to perform detection over a field of view, and then (or at the same time preferably in a different frequency band) different transmitter elements may be used to view in a different direction. Preferably, the fields of view overlap. Other shapes may also be implemented, typically having rotational symmetry around a blocking element. For example, a hexagon or an oval.”, further see paragraph 0063 “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, sequences of transmitter elements 10 are used (lines of black circles on the right) in the first instance with frequency increasing towards the bottom antenna element, and in a second instance with frequency increasing towards the top antenna element. The same sequence of antenna elements may be used in those two transmission schemes, either at different times, or in different frequency bands, or different sequences of antenna elements may be used.”);
- generating a plurality of detection maps, by the acquisition of a plurality of observations combined with one another by coherent or non-coherent integration of the echoes corresponding to the plurality of pulses, each detection map being obtained in a given direction (EL1, EL2, EL3) corresponding to the width of the main lobe of the antenna panel (see paragraph 0099, “FIGS. 14A-14C are typically far simpler than the real situation. In a real situation there are typically not only a large number of objects, but the objects may have shape. As an example, an urban environment provides a very complicated return. To deal with the complexity, a large number of transmission schemes must be transmitted. Each transmission scheme results in a map consisting of a typically huge number of sets of arcs/curves, the strength of each set of arcs/curves being an indication that one or more objects is probably located somewhere on at least one of those arcs/curves. However by comparing and combining many such maps that have different sweep paths, it is possible to build up a map of where reflecting material/objects are located.”, further see paragraph 0198, “Each scheme provides a map of where objects might be. The data may be processed by searching for objects in a short range, using the fastest sweeping matched pairs (e.g. the fastest 10 positive sweeping schemes, and the fastest 10 negative sweeping schemes). High granularity is suited to high sweep frequencies. One way to identify objects is to plot the possible locations (the various paths of the main lobe of the transmission signal) of objects suggested by the results of each transmit, and find those locations (parts of paths) where substantially all of the schemes suggest there could be an object. Having identified the position of an object, it is then preferable to remove information about possible locations that are now known to be incorrect (the relevant remainders of the paths) to the extent appropriate (i.e. reduce the strength of the remainders of those paths rather than removing the paths entirely).”);
- combining the detection maps so as to detect the presence of a target in the relative bearing domain of the detection device (see paragraph 0099, “With the exception perhaps of a radar on a spacecraft where only one or two objects are in range of detection, FIGS. 14A-14C are typically far simpler than the real situation. In a real situation there are typically not only a large number of objects, but the objects may have shape. As an example, an urban environment provides a very complicated return. To deal with the complexity, a large number of transmission schemes must be transmitted. Each transmission scheme results in a map consisting of a typically huge number of sets of arcs/curves, the strength of each set of arcs/curves being an indication that one or more objects is probably located somewhere on at least one of those arcs/curves. However by comparing and combining many such maps that have different sweep paths, it is possible to build up a map of where reflecting material/objects are located.”, further see paragraph 0198, further see paragraph 0202, “Having plotted each trace across the remapped field of view, it is possible to combine the traces at each location from multiple or many schemes, for example by multiplying their values across the map. The locations where objects are located are revealed as these locations have traces from many or all schemes.”, further see Figs. 9A-9D which depict a plurality of maps being generated using different transmission schemes to easily locate target).
Regarding claim 2, Jones further discloses
Method according to Claim 1, wherein the interleaving pattern comprises a sequential transmission of the pulses of different transmission frequencies in a plurality of directions (EL1, EL2, EL3) (see Fig. 7, which shows the transmission of the pulses of different frequencies in a plurality of direction, further see paragraph 0086, “Turning to FIG. 7, this figure illustrates two techniques (firstly different sweep direction with the same repeat frequency, and secondly different repeat frequency) being used together. In this example many schemes can be used, the top and middle configurations (schemes 1 and 2) have opposite sweep directions (due to, for example, opposite variation in frequency variation across the antenna elements) whereas the middle and bottom configurations (schemes 2 and 3) have different sweep rates. By combining information on the timing of returned signals, based on all three schemes it is possible to ascertain the angle and distance of the object. Additional (preferably many) schemes may be used to ensure that many objects can be distinguished (see additional output boxes bottom right, with data from additional schemes—not shown).”), each direction being associated with a set of transmission frequencies (Fe1/Fe4, Fe2/Fe5, Fe3/Fe6) (see Fig. 7, frequencies of first and third plot being different), the transmission frequencies being used cyclically in a same direction, the pulses being spaced apart by a repetition period (TR) that is predefined from one direction to another (see Fig. 7), the ambiguous period (Ta) between two pulses of the same frequency in a same direction at the end of each scan over the relative bearing domain being greater than the repetition period (TR) (see Fig. 7, which shows the period between two transmission pulses of the same frequency in a same direction being greater than the repetition period).
Regarding claim 3, Jones further discloses
Method according to Claim 1, wherein the interleaving pattern comprises a sequential transmission of pulses of the same transmission frequency in a plurality of directions (see Fig. 2, further see paragraph 0064, “As shown in FIG. 2, a target 12 (white circle) receives a main lobe of the transmission with different timings depending whether the frequencies increase up the antenna elements or downwards. In this example, the frequencies are the same, merely reversed and at an equal rate (a matched pair), however many alternative configurations are also possible.”), the pulses of a same frequency being spaced apart by a predefined repetition period (TR) (see Fig. 2, pulses of the same frequency being space apart by a repetition period (see plot 14)), the transmission frequency being modified at the end of each scan over the relative bearing domain (see Fig. 2 where after one scan in one direction, another scan in the other direction is performed), the ambiguous period (Ta) between two transmissions of the same frequency (Fe1) in a same direction (EL1) being greater than the repetition period (TR) (see Fig. 2, which shows the period between two transmission of the same frequency in a same direction being greater than the repetition period).
Regarding claim 4, Jones further discloses
Method according to Claim 1, wherein the interleaving pattern comprises a sequential transmission of pulses having different transmission frequencies (Fe1, Fe2) in a same direction (EL1) (see Fig. 7, which shows the transmission of the pulses of different frequencies in a plurality of direction, further see paragraph 0086, “Turning to FIG. 7, this figure illustrates two techniques (firstly different sweep direction with the same repeat frequency, and secondly different repeat frequency) being used together. In this example many schemes can be used, the top and middle configurations (schemes 1 and 2) have opposite sweep directions (due to, for example, opposite variation in frequency variation across the antenna elements) whereas the middle and bottom configurations (schemes 2 and 3) have different sweep rates. By combining information on the timing of returned signals, based on all three schemes it is possible to ascertain the angle and distance of the object. Additional (preferably many) schemes may be used to ensure that many objects can be distinguished (see additional output boxes bottom right, with data from additional schemes—not shown).”) , the pulses being spaced apart by a predefined repetition period (TR) (see Fig. 7), the ambiguous period (Ta) between two transmissions of the same frequency in a same direction, at the end of each scan over the relative bearing domain, being greater than the repetition period (TR) (see Fig. 7 which shows that the period between two transmissions of the same frequency in a same direction, at the end of each scan over the relative bearing domain, being greater than the repetition period”).
Regarding claim 6, Jones further discloses
Method according to claim 1, wherein a coherent integration is performed on the pulses of a same direction and of a same transmission frequency (see Fig. 2, where coherent integration is performed on the pulses to generate the top map (which is of the pulses of a same direction and of a same transmission frequency), further see paragraph 0074, “FIGS. 4F and 4G show a third alternative approach. In FIG. 4F, a second scheme is implemented. In this case it is done by changing the field of view. This changes the sweep path, but does not change the sweep frequency or sweep direction. In scheme 1 at T=0, and in scheme 2 at T=Δt the main lobes reflect off the object. From the timings of the reflections this narrows down the possible locations of the object to the three shown in FIG. 4F (black circles). In FIG. 4G, a third scheme is implemented. Again the sweep frequency and the sweep direction are the same as in scheme 1 and scheme 2, however the forward direction of the transmitter is different, and accordingly the sweep path is different. Here, the main lobe reflects off the object at T=Δt, and from the timings of the reflections resulting from the three schemes, it is possible to determine the location of the object.”).
Regarding claim 7, Jones further discloses
Method according to claim 1, wherein the interleaving pattern is repeated, by applying, on each repetition, an angular offset (G0) equal to the width of the main lobe (θ3dB) (see Fig. 4F, further see paragraph 0074, “FIGS. 4F and 4G show a third alternative approach. In FIG. 4F, a second scheme is implemented. In this case it is done by changing the field of view. This changes the sweep path, but does not change the sweep frequency or sweep direction. In scheme 1 at T=0, and in scheme 2 at T=Δt the main lobes reflect off the object. From the timings of the reflections this narrows down the possible locations of the object to the three shown in FIG. 4F (black circles). In FIG. 4G, a third scheme is implemented. Again the sweep frequency and the sweep direction are the same as in scheme 1 and scheme 2, however the forward direction of the transmitter is different, and accordingly the sweep path is different. Here, the main lobe reflects off the object at T=Δt, and from the timings of the reflections resulting from the three schemes, it is possible to determine the location of the object.”).
Regarding claim 8, Jones further discloses
Method according to claim 1, wherein the interleaving is spread over three panels with phase control (PE1, PE2, PE3), the relative bearing domain to be covered being equal to 360° (see Fig. 5A, further see paragraphs 0138-0139, “The technique described herein is more accurate within a forward field of view of about 60 to 120 degrees. In some embodiments, rearward transmission from a linear sequence of transmitters may be permitted (by not blocking it) or indeed in all directions that are perpendicular to the line of transmitters. However, this may cause difficulties distinguishing whether an object is in front or behind etc., so generally a field of view is limited to a particular forwards direction…That said it is possible to change the field of view, to use two, several, or many. The process described is repeated in respect of each field of view. Rather than rotate the transmitter (or receiver) a different selection of transmitter elements may be used in some embodiments to establish a different field of view. The fields of view are typically overlapping, e.g. to form a line or band around 360 degrees, or optionally to cover all directions. This assists in gathering information about objects in a wider range of directions.”).
Regarding claim 9, Jones further discloses
Method according to claim 1, wherein the pulses are generated on a number of transmission frequencies lying between two and six inclusive (see Fig. 22, further see paragraph 0040, “FIG. 22 illustrates how two distinguishable transmission patterns can be exhibited in a single transmission scheme for a transmitter with 2 elements with frequencies of 0.2 and 4.2, a sampling rate of 80, and spacing of 5—the leftward sweeping spiral has a much faster repetition rate than the rightward sweeping slow spiral, enabling the receiver or computing device to distinguish them;”).
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claim 5, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying Jones et al. (US 20190265353 A1) to have the missing elements without the improper use of hindsight. Specifically, nothing in the prior art would suggest to disclose: “wherein the repetition period (TR) and the ambiguous period (Ta) are determined in such a way that ΔG≫θ3dBwith ΔG=Gmax-GminNbpointings and Nbpointings=rndTATRin which Gmax-Gmincorresponds to the relative bearing domain to be covered, and θ3dB corresponds to the width of the main lobe.”. Therefore, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of dependent claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
RINCON et al. (US 20190101639 A1) is considered pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system with a plurality of panels used for target detection and generating 3D images using a plurality of images.
Nelson et al. (US 20180136344 A1) is considered pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a detector with a plurality of panels used for target detection and radiographic imaging.
HALBERT et al. (US 20170285158 A1) is considered pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system with a plurality of panels used for target detection where the ambiguous period between two transmissions of the same frequency in a same direction is greater than the repetition period (see Figs. 16a-16c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 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, 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648