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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-2-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s arguments concerning claims 7, 12 and 14 the examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art does not teach allocation in the second time synchronization.
Himmelstoss, paragraph 13 speaks to synchronization for time windows (i.e. time synchronized frame structures). Paragraphs 38 and 44 speak to using multiple frequency bands and paragraph 45 speaks to providing modulation in various time windows. In the rejection of claim 7, the “node in the radar” from Gulati is already combined with Himmelstoss as per the claim 7 depends from. Applicant defines the second frame structure as the one created by the radar for transmission and allocation of transmission resources from Himmelstoss, paragraph 45, include transmission for MA in certain time windows and transmission for MB in certain time windows. These time windows, where transmission occurs or not, represent the allocation of resources on the second frame structure.
With respect to applicant’s argument concerning claim 10 and spectrum sharing, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Himmelstoss provides various frequency bands and Gulati further provides various frequency bands. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what frequencies bands to use. The applicant has provided no evidence as to why using the second frequency band within the first improves function over the disclosure of Himmelstoss and Gulati. In addition, sharing a frequency band within Himmelstoss will still allow for proper operation as Himmelstoss ensures the two radars are not transmitting at the same time.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelstoss, et.al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0390583, filed October 8, 2019 in view of Gulati, et. al,. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0025865, published January 23, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 11, Himmelstoss discloses a radar system (100) for coordinated automotive radar transmission, comprising
a cellular access network node (110,120,130) configured to establish a primary time synchronized frame structure (210, 310) for cellular radio transmissions over a first local area (140) in a first frequency band (F1), wherein the primary time synchronized frame structure (210, 310) is at least partly defined by one or more transmitted synchronization signals (Himmelstoss, ¶13),
and one or more automotive radar transceivers [ arranged to determine a radar time reference (TO) from the one or more synchronization signals] (220, 320), and to establish a secondary time synchronized frame structure (330) for radar transmissions over at least part of the first local area (140) in a second frequency band (F2), wherein the secondary time synchronized frame structure (330) is at least partly defined by the radar time reference (Himmelstoss, ¶38 and 44).
wherein the cellular access network node is configured to allocate transmission resources for radar transmission to at least some of the one or more automotive radar transceivers in the secondary time synchronized frame structure (Himmelstoss, ¶45 where time windows provide for transmission).
Himmelstoss fails to expressly disclose the network node within the radar system.
Gulati teaches a network node within a vehicle radar system (¶53).
As Himmelstoss suggests the use of cellular data for time synchronization it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a network node in order to gain the benefit of receiving the cellular signal.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the network node provide parameters and synchronization, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Himmelstoss in providing the proper waveforms for radar transmission.
Examiner’s Note: It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (above and below in brackets) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As per claim 2, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1, wherein the network node (110,120,130) is comprised in includes a third generation partnership program, 3GPP, defined cellular access network (Gulati, ¶30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use 3GPP in order to gain the obvious benefit of using a well-known and used standard.
As per claim 3, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,wherein the one or more automotive radar transceivers (161, 162) are frequency modulated continuous wave, FMCW, radar transceivers (Himmelstoss, ¶19).
As per claim 4, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,where the second frequency band (F2) is different from the first frequency band (Himmelstoss, ¶12-14 where it is understood that radar doesn’t transmit on cellular frequencies as Himmelstoss is focused on avoiding interference).
As per claim 5, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,where the secondary time synchronized frame structure (330) comprises consecutive transmission time slots (340) of a predetermined time slot duration, where the start of a time slot is determined based on the time reference (Himmelstoss, Fig. 5 and ¶44).
As per claim 6, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 5, where the one or more automotive radar transceivers (161,162) are [arranged to detect time slots associated with ongoing radar transmissions in the secondary time synchronized frame structure] (330) prior to selecting a time slot for radar transmission (Himmelstoss, ¶13).
As per claim 8, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,where the network node (110, 120, 130) is configured to communicate one or more FMCW transmission parameters to the one or more automotive radar transceivers (161,162) using a communication channel supported in the first frequency band (Gulati, ¶67).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the network node provide parameters, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Himmelstoss in providing the proper waveforms for radar transmission.
As per claim 9, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,where the one or more automotive radar transceivers (161,162) are [arranged to establish a further secondary time synchronized frame structure for radar transmissions over a second local area] in a third frequency band in response to a handover operation involving the network node (Himmelstoss, Fig. 1 providing more than one coverage area and more than one frequency band for the radars, FA/FB).
As per claim 10, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar system (100) according to claim 1,where the network node (110, 120, 130) is [arranged for spectrum sharing], and where the second frequency band (F2) is comprised in the first frequency band (Gulati, ¶3).
As per claim 12, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses a radar transceiver configured to generate a frequency modulated continuous wave, FMCW, transmission, wherein the radar transceiver is arranged to obtain a radar time reference (TO) determined from one or more synchronization signals (220, 320) transmitted in a cellular access network, and to establish a secondary time synchronized frame structure (330) for radar transmissions in a second frequency band (F2), wherein the secondary time synchronized frame structure (330) is at least partly defined by the radar time reference (Himmelstoss, ¶38 and 44);
wherein the radar transceiver is arranged to establish a further secondary time synchronized frame structure for radar transmissions over a second local area in a third frequency band in response to a handover operation between access areas of the cellular access network (Himmelstoss, ¶45 using multiple windows).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to comprise a plurality of frequency bands as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 13, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses the radar transceiver (161, 162, 820) according to claim 12, comprising an input port [for receiving the radar time reference] (TO) from a communications transceiver [arranged to communicate with a cellular access network node] (Himmelstoss, ¶13 where it is understood that a radar system has ports for incoming and outgoing signals).
As per claim 14, Himmelstoss as modified by Gulati further discloses a cellular access network node (110, 120, 130) configured to establish a primary time synchronized frame structure (210, 310) for cellular radio transmissions over a first local area (140) in a first frequency band (F1), wherein the primary time synchronized frame structure (210, 310) is at least partly defined by one or more transmitted synchronization signals (220, 320), and wherein the cellular access network node (110,120,130) is [arranged to schedule radar transmissions in a secondary time synchronized frame structure] for radar transmissions in a second frequency band (Himmelstoss, ¶13 and Gulati, ¶32);
wherein the cellular access network node is configured to allocate transmission resources for radar transmission to at least some of the one or more automotive radar transceivers in the secondary time synchronized frame structure (Himmelstoss, ¶45 where time windows provide for transmission).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights