CTFR 18/569,944 CTFR 89297 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 3-31-2026 have been fully considered. With respect to applicant’s argument that Chen does not detect a hopping pattern, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen is looking for interference coming from other radar signals. Chen monitors and analyses the pattern through the hysteresis and looks for consecutive interferences over time and frequency. The claim language “hopping pattern” is broad as there is not specifics as to what is hopping. Chen, monitoring for consecutive (and therefore also non-consecutive or hopping) time and frequency interference meets the claim language as written. Applicant notes the hopping could include range or speed however these limitations are not in the claims. With respect to applicant’s argument that Chen does not transmit a sidelink message based on the detected pattern, the examiner agrees. As provided in the Office Action, communicating after interference detection (as in the claims) and communication before interference detection (as done by Chen) are variants of each other. There is nothing patentably distinct about doing it afterwards and as noted in the obviousness statement, Chen can benefit from using the existing V2V to communication any interference still occurring after each radar utilizes its hopping to avoid the deadlock as discussed in Chen, ¶64. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine which method or procedure may work best in a given situation as Chen already has interference detection and communication with other vehicle radars. With respect to applicant’s argument concerning having radar ID within the hopping, the examiner submits that as noted in the Office Action, each radar has a particular ID and uses a database, along with the ID, to determine the hopping pattern as discussed in Chen, ¶33-35. Each radar also provides a beacon detector wherein each radar can identify other radars within the area and coordination of hopping patterns based on the other vehicles particular ID and Database. As noted above, “hopping pattern” is a broad term. The beacon provides an ID of a radar in Chen and that particular radar has a database for various hopping patterns so although the ID is not in the hopping pattern itself, the patter and the ID are linked and shared between vehicles as seen in Chen, ¶36. As noted in the Office Action, Chen does not provide the same exact steps as the claim and therefore the obviousness statement is provided. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0260671, filed September 24, 2019 . As per claims 1 and 24, Chen discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor (Chen, Fig. 15); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive a set of radar signals in a set of transmission frames (Chen, ¶56 from the assigner); detect a hopping pattern associated with the set of radar signals based at least in part on receiving the set of radar signals in the set of transmission frames (Chen, ¶64 using hysteresis where a consistent or changing/hopping pattern is looked for); and transmit, to a second UE, a sidelink message for interference coordination between the first UE and the second UE based at least in part on detecting the hopping pattern (Chen, ¶58). Chen fails to explicitly disclose using a sidelink and fails to explicitly disclose messaging a second UE based on received interference. Chen either analyzes interference and avoids or communicates with another vehicle ahead of time. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to communicate with the second UE when interference is detected in order to gain the benefit of avoiding interference regardless of assigned frequencies from the assigner. The examiner submits that sidelink is a common direct communication between vehicles and Chen suggests using V2V. As per claim 2, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to detect the hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: detect a variation in a frame start time of the set of radar signals in the set of transmission frames or a variation in frame phase ramp of the set of radar signals in the set of transmission frames, or both, wherein the hopping pattern is associated with a finite duration (Chen, ¶64-65 looking at time fand frequency). As per claim 3, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine that the second UE is associated with the detected hopping pattern based at least in part on a periodicity of the hopping pattern (Chen, ¶64-65). As per claim 4, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions to determine that the second UE is associated with the detected hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a UE identifier associated with the hopping pattern based at least in part on a codebook for hopping patterns (Chen, ¶33 and ¶49 having a unit ID). As per claim 5, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: apply a decoder to the detected hopping pattern to obtain the UE identifier (Chen, ¶57-58 where analysis of incoming beacon signals acts as decoding). As per claim 6, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transmit the sidelink message are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the sidelink message to a plurality of UEs in a broadcast or groupcast transmission, the plurality of UEs comprising the second UE (Chen, ¶57). As per claim 7, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive sidelink control information indicating a zone identifier of the second UE; and determine a position of the second UE relative to the first UE based at least in part on the zone identifier, wherein transmitting the sidelink message is based at least in part on the position of the second UE (Chen, Fig. 2 and ¶58 where positions are shared and the lane or position with respect to the other vehicle acts as a zone). As per claim 8, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sidelink message comprises an indication of the detected hopping pattern, an additional hopping pattern associated with the first UE, or both (Chen, ¶65 using multiple patterns). As per claims 9 and 30, Chen further discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a vehicle user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor (Chen, Fig. 15); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: select a first hopping pattern for transmitting radar signaling by the vehicle UE, the first hopping pattern indicative of an identity of the vehicle UE and associated with a hopping pattern periodicity; and transmit a set of radar signals in a set of transmission frames according to the first hopping pattern and the hopping pattern periodicity (Chen, ¶32-37). Chen fails to explicitly disclose the hopping pattern indicating an ID however Chen provides for a unit ID (¶42) and sharing ID and hopping patterns through beacon identification (¶36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the ID in the pattern in order to gain the obvious benefit of continuously providing it for other UEs to detect. As per claim 10, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions to select the first hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: randomly select the first hopping pattern from a set of hopping patterns available for radar signaling by the vehicle UE (Chen, ¶37). As per claim 11, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions to select the first hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: select the first hopping pattern from a set of hopping patterns configured for radar signaling by the vehicle UE (Chen, ¶37 and 56). As per claim 12, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions to select the first hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: select the first hopping pattern from a codebook based at least in part on a UE identifier corresponding to the vehicle UE, the codebook comprising a plurality of hopping patterns for radar signaling (Chen, ¶32-34). As per claim 13, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the first hopping pattern is uniquely mapped to the UE identifier, and the codebook comprises a system-wide codebook (Chen, ¶37 allocation map). As per claim 14, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the codebook comprises a hopping pattern list comprising the first hopping pattern, and the UE identifier comprises a UE group identifier corresponding to the first hopping pattern (Chen, ¶37). As per claim 15, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions to select the first hopping pattern are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: generate the first hopping pattern based at least in part on performing an encoding operation on a binary alphabet representation of one or more parameter values corresponding to the vehicle UE, wherein the first hopping pattern is unique to a UE identifier corresponding to the vehicle UE (Chen, ¶56 where each gets an assigned hopping sequence and ¶49, ID). As per claim 16, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the one or more parameters comprise the UE identifier, orientation of the radar signaling, a transmit power, or a combination thereof (Chen, ¶49 ID). As per claim 17, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a second UE, a sidelink message indicating a second hopping pattern, a third hopping pattern corresponding to the second UE, or both; determine at least one of the second hopping pattern or the third hopping pattern satisfies a threshold associated with the first hopping pattern; and perform interference coordination with the second UE based at least in part on determining that the at least one of the second hopping pattern or the third hopping pattern satisfying the threshold (Chen, Fig. 8, ¶58 where a third pattern can be offered when vehicle B does not confirm the scheme). As per claim 18, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the threshold is configured at the vehicle UE (Chen, ¶58 and ¶66). As per claim 19, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the threshold comprises a first value for the second hopping pattern and a second value for the third hopping pattern (Chen, ¶58 where it is understood that the patterns do not have the same value). As per claim 20, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions to determine that the second hopping pattern satisfies the threshold are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a correlation product of the second hopping pattern and the first hopping pattern; and compare the correlation product with the threshold (Chen, ¶58). As per claim 21, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: establish a unicast connection with an additional UE based at least in part on the transmitted set of radar signals, the unicast connection for performing interference coordination between the vehicle UE and the additional UE (Chen, ¶57). As per the limitations of claim 22, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1 above. As per claim 23, Chen further discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a correlation between the second hopping pattern and the first hopping pattern, wherein transmitting the sidelink message is based at least in part on the correlation satisfying a threshold (Chen, ¶66). As per the limitations of claim 25, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 2 above. As per the limitations of claim 26, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 3 above. As per the limitations of claim 27, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 6 above. As per the limitations of claim 28, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 7 above. As per the limitations of claim 29, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 8 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892 . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 2 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 3 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 4 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 5 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 6 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 7 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 8 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 9 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/569,944 Page 10 Art Unit: 3646
Prosecution Insights