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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subburaj et al. (US 20180074168 hereinafter Subburaj) in view of Vogt et al. (US 20160124075 hereinafter Vogt) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20050059366 hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 3, Subburaj teaches A radar apparatus comprising: a transceiver to output a transmission wave (0027 “an integrated transceiver”) that is frequency-modulated (0027 “FMCW radar system 200”),
and to receive a reflected wave propagated by reflection of the transmission wave from a target and to output a reception signal (Abstract “A noise-mitigated continuous-wave frequency-modulated radar includes, for example, a transmitter for generating a radar signal, a receiver for receiving a reflected radar signal and comprising a mixer for generating a baseband signal in response to the received radar signal and in response to a local oscillator (LO) signal”): and
an interference wave suppression processor to separate, when an interference wave is received together with the reflected wave, a noise signal derived from the interference wave from the reception signal and to suppress the noise signal (0006 “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a noise-mitigated FMCW (frequency-modulated continuous-wave) radar system in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure.”),
wherein the interference wave suppression processor includes an interference wave pseudo signal generator to generate a pseudo signal of the interference wave based on the reception signal in the case where the reflected wave and the interference wave are simultaneously received (Abstract “The impact of amplitude noise or phase noise associated with interferers, namely, for example, strong reflections from nearby objects, and electromagnetic coupling from transmit antenna to receive antenna, on the detection of other surrounding objects is reduced by configuring the signal shifter in response to an interferer frequency and phase offset.”; 0024 “The output of the signal shifter 284 is generally referred to as the shifted baseband signal and the frequency and phase of the interferer signal after the signal shifts, while the output of the signal shifter 284 is referred to as the interferer-offset frequency and phase in the shifted baseband signal. (For example, the shifted baseband signal has a substantially zero frequency and phase that is substantially centered on a multiple of 90 degrees.)”),
a first quadrature mixer (0030 “quadrature signal mixer”) to perform frequency conversion on the reception signal based on the pseudo signal (Abstract “a signal shifter coupled to at least one of the transmitter, LO input of the mixer”) and to suppress a time variation component of the noise signal (fig 2; 098 “the phase shifting may be done such that the signal shifter output has the interferer signal at quadrature angles of 90 degrees,”; 0051 “Either of the signal shifter 212 and signal shifter 299 in the transmitter is typically active at the same time and is operable to mitigate one of the amplitude and phase noise associated with the interferer signal.
Subburaj does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Vogt teaches
the interference wave being a radio wave other than the reflected wave and being frequency-modulated in a mode different from a mode of the transmission wave
(0062 “An example of a radar system for a fleet of vehicles 42, 46 will be explained below with reference to FIG. 7 to FIG. 12; in this example, external interference in the form of an interfering signal that derives from another radar sensor 10′ of another motor vehicle 46 is suppressed thanks to the use, in a radar sensor 10 of a motor vehicle 42, of code sets each having two code sequences.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vogt with the teachings of Subburaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (Vogt 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vogt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular interference features. Since both Subburaj and Vogt disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Choi teaches
and a direct current component suppressor to detect a direct current component generated in the first quadrature mixer and to suppress the direct current component detected (0025 “The first mixer can be used to rotate the signal such that the spur frequency is at 0 frequency (i.e. DC). The low-pass filter performs its computation on that rotated signal to filter out everything but the spur. Note that the rotation by the first mixer generates a signal with 0 frequency offset, thereby allowing the low-pass filter to advantageously remove the non-spur components of the signal. The second mixer can be used for rotating the resulting filtered spur signal back to its original frequency. The adder can subtract the re-rotated signal from the original signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vogt with the teachings of Subburaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a receiver performance (Choi 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Choi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular mixer features. Since both the cited prior art and Choi disclose similar RF systems using mixers, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the interference wave suppression processor further includes a second quadrature mixer to perform frequency conversion on the reception signal based on the pseudo signal and to remove the pseudo signal by which the reception signal is multiplied in the first quadrature mixer (Vogt 0062 “An example of a radar system for a fleet of vehicles 42, 46 will be explained below with reference to FIG. 7 to FIG. 12; in this example, external interference in the form of an interfering signal that derives from another radar sensor 10′ of another motor vehicle 46 is suppressed thanks to the use, in a radar sensor 10 of a motor vehicle 42, of code sets each having two code sequences.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vogt with the teachings of Subburaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (Vogt 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vogt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular interference features. Since both Subburaj and Vogt disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the transceiver outputs a first reception beat signal and a second reception beat signal that are each the reception signal and have phases different from each other by 90 degrees (Subburaj 0030 “The phases of LOI and LOQ are 90 degrees apart and have the same frequency as the LO system 210 output signal. The LOI and LOQ signals are respectively mixed with the LNA output signal by the in-phase signal mixer 262 and the quadrature signal mixer 263.”), and the interference wave pseudo signal generator generates the signal based on the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal in the case where the reflected wave and the interference wave are simultaneously received (Subburaj 0043 “he estimation of the frequency and phase of the dominant reflection as determined by the estimator 282 is expressed as ω and φ, respectively. The negative values of ω and φ (−ω and −φ) are used (singly or in combination) to program (either or both) of the signal shifters 212 (if present) and 284 (if present).”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Subburaj teaches A radar apparatus comprising: a transceiver to output a transmission wave (0027 “an integrated transceiver”) that is frequency-modulated (0027 “FMCW radar system 200”), and
to receive a reflected wave propagated by reflection of the transmission wave from a target and to output a reception signal (Abstract “A noise-mitigated continuous-wave frequency-modulated radar includes, for example, a transmitter for generating a radar signal, a receiver for receiving a reflected radar signal and comprising a mixer for generating a baseband signal in response to the received radar signal and in response to a local oscillator (LO) signal”); and
an interference wave suppression processor to separate, when an interference wave is received together with the reflected wave, a noise signal derived from the interference wave from the reception signal and to suppress the noise signal (0006 “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a noise-mitigated FMCW (frequency-modulated continuous-wave) radar system in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure.”),
wherein the interference wave suppression processor includes an interference wave pseudo signal generator to generate a pseudo signal of the interference wave based on the reception signal in the case where the reflected wave and the interference wave are simultaneously received (Abstract “The impact of amplitude noise or phase noise associated with interferers, namely, for example, strong reflections from nearby objects, and electromagnetic coupling from transmit antenna to receive antenna, on the detection of other surrounding objects is reduced by configuring the signal shifter in response to an interferer frequency and phase offset.”; 0024 “The output of the signal shifter 284 is generally referred to as the shifted baseband signal and the frequency and phase of the interferer signal after the signal shifts, while the output of the signal shifter 284 is referred to as the interferer-offset frequency and phase in the shifted baseband signal. (For example, the shifted baseband signal has a substantially zero frequency and phase that is substantially centered on a multiple of 90 degrees.)”),
a first quadrature mixer (0030 “quadrature signal mixer”) to perform frequency conversion on the reception signal based on the pseudo signal (Abstract “a signal shifter coupled to at least one of the transmitter, LO input of the mixer”) and to suppress a time variation component of the noise signal (fig 2; 098 “the phase shifting may be done such that the signal shifter output has the interferer signal at quadrature angles of 90 degrees,”; 0051 “Either of the signal shifter 212 and signal shifter 299 in the transmitter is typically active at the same time and is operable to mitigate one of the amplitude and phase noise associated with the interferer signal.”), and
Subburaj does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Vogt teaches
the interference wave being a radio wave other than the reflected wave and being frequency-modulated in a mode different from a mode of the transmission wave (Vogt 0062 “An example of a radar system for a fleet of vehicles 42, 46 will be explained below with reference to FIG. 7 to FIG. 12; in this example, external interference in the form of an interfering signal that derives from another radar sensor 10′ of another motor vehicle 46 is suppressed thanks to the use, in a radar sensor 10 of a motor vehicle 42, of code sets each having two code sequences.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vogt with the teachings of Subburaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (Vogt 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vogt merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular interference features. Since both Subburaj and Vogt disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Choi teaches
a second quadrature mixer to perform frequency conversion on the reception signal based on the pseudo signal and to remove the pseudo signal by which the reception signal is multiplied in the first quadrature mixer (0025 “The first mixer can be used to rotate the signal such that the spur frequency is at 0 frequency (i.e. DC). The low-pass filter performs its computation on that rotated signal to filter out everything but the spur. Note that the rotation by the first mixer generates a signal with 0 frequency offset, thereby allowing the low-pass filter to advantageously remove the non-spur components of the signal. The second mixer can be used for rotating the resulting filtered spur signal back to its original frequency. The adder can subtract the re-rotated signal from the original signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vogt with the teachings of Subburaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a receiver performance (Choi 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Choi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular mixer features. Since both the cited prior art and Choi disclose similar RF systems using mixers, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 8is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
ENOMOTO et al. (US 20160061943) discloses “A signal processing device according to an embodiment includes a plurality of signal processing units and a pseudo signal generating unit (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648