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 statements (IDS) submitted on 3-26-2024, 7-18-2024, 10-2-2024, 8-31-2025 and 10-30-2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the point cloud and its dimensions, as best understood by examiner, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 31-53 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.
As per claims 31, 50 and 52, it is unclear what the “value” is and or how it corresponds to an interference based parameter. The interference based parameter is also not well defined with respect to a “value”. Further clarification is required.
As per claims 31-53, the dimension size and point cloud are unclear. In some claims, such as claim 32 it appears to be a measurement, perhaps of a cluster of radar returns. In other claims, such as 47, it appears to be a transmission configuration and in the specification it appears to be characteristics of the target object such as speed, azimuth, etc. Further clarification on the 4D point cloud and it individual dimensions is required.
As per claim 32, it is unclear what a “reduced dimension size” is and how it is less than a “supported size”. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 35, it is unclear how the first interference parameter is greater than the second. As best examiner can tell, the second interference parameter would be the same as the first value unless the interference itself has changed. It is unclear what exactly the first and second values are measuring and how it is ensured the first value is greater than the second. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 44, the threshold value is unclear. As the “value” has not been properly defined it is unclear what the threshold is or what is represents. Further clarification is required.
As per claims 46 and 53, the term “negotiate” is unclear. As best examiner can tell, the controller directs the radar device and there is no negotiation between the two. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 48, it is unclear what the “radio resource” is, where it came from or what is represents. As best examiner can tell, the specification implies the radio transmission is the actual radar signal but the claim uses the radio to “communicate the radar signal”. Further clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: The rejections below are based on examiner best understanding of the claims given the 112 issues above, especially concerning the 4D point cloud and its dimensions.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 31-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stettiner, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0156980, published May 27, 2021.
As per claims 31, 50 and 52, Stettiner discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor (Stettiner, Fig. 8 and 19) configured to:
identify a value of an interference-based parameter corresponding to an interference level in an environment of a radar device (Stettiner, Fig. 45, 370);
based on the value of the interference-based parameter, determine a Point Cloud (PC) dimension size of at least one dimension of a four-dimension (4D) PC; generate 4D PC radar information according to the PC dimension size, the 4D PC radar information based on radar data corresponding to radar signals communicated by the radar device; and an output to provide the 4D PC radar information (Stettiner, ¶274-276).
As per claim 32, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the PC dimension size of the dimension of the 4D PC comprises a reduced PC dimension size that is less than a supported size of the dimension of the 4D PC (Stettiner, ¶276).
As per claim 33, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the reduced PC dimension size defines a selected sub-range of dimension values from a range of dimension values in the dimension of the 4D PC, wherein the processor is configured to generate the 4D PC radar information with respect to the sub-range of dimension values (Stettiner, ¶35 using partials).
As per claim 34, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a first PC dimension size based on a first value of the interference-based parameter; generate first 4D PC radar information according to the first PC dimension size; determine a second PC dimension size based on a second value of the interference- based parameter; and generate second 4D PC radar information according to the second PC dimension size, wherein the first value of the interference-based parameter is different from the second value of the interference-based parameter, wherein the first PC dimension size defines a first sub-range of dimension values from a range of dimension values in the dimension of the 4D PC, wherein the second PC dimension size defines a second sub-range of dimension values from the range of dimension values in the dimension of the 4D PC, wherein the second sub-range of dimension values are different from the first sub- range of dimension values (Stettiner, ¶272 where the interference is monitored continuously).
As per claim 35, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the first value of the interference-based parameter is greater than the second value of the interference-based parameter, and the second PC dimension size is less than the first PC dimension size (Stettiner, ¶39).
As per claim 36, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to determine a radar scheme based on the value of the interference-based parameter, wherein the radar scheme defines a configuration of the radar device to generate the 4D PC radar information according to the PC dimension size (Stettiner, ¶275).
As per claim 37, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 36, wherein the radar scheme comprises a radar communication scheme to communicate the radar signals, wherein the radar communication scheme is according to the PC dimension size (Stettiner, ¶277).
As per claim 38, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the radar communication scheme comprises a radar Transmission (Tx) scheme to configure transmission of radar Tx signals by the radar device (Stettiner, ¶277).
As per claim 39, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the radar Tx scheme comprises at least one of a Tx beamforming scheme, a Tx frequency bandwidth (BW) for transmission of the radar Tx signals, a Tx pulse duration of the radar Tx signals, or a count of Tx pulses per radar frame (Stettiner, ¶259 and 277).
As per claim 40, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the radar communication scheme comprises a radar frame rate according to the PC dimension size, wherein the radar frame rate configures a rate of radar frames to be communicated by the radar device (Stettiner, ¶284).
As per claim 41, Stettiner further discloses The apparatus of claim 37, wherein the radar communication scheme comprises a radar range to configure a maximal radar detection range.
As per claim 42, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 36, wherein the radar scheme comprises a radar processing scheme to process the radar data corresponding to radar signals communicated by the radar device, wherein the radar processing scheme is according to the PC dimension size (Stettiner, ¶277 and 284).
As per claim 43, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 42, wherein the radar processing scheme comprises a multi-snapshot processing scheme to configure a count of radar snapshots to process the radar data corresponding to the radar signals communicated by the radar device (Stettiner, ¶39 using chirps).
As per claim 44, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to adjust the PC dimension size based on a comparison between the value of the interference-based parameter and a threshold value (Stettiner, ¶285).
As per claim 45, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to monitor the value of the interference-based parameter, and to adjust the PC dimension size based on a detected change in the value of the interference-based parameter (Stettiner, ¶272 where it runs continuously).
As per claim 46, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to negotiate the PC dimension size with a system controller of a system comprising the radar device (Stettiner, ¶143).
As per claim 47, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the PC dimension size comprises at least one of a size of an azimuth Field of View (FoV) in the 4D PC, a size of an elevation Field of View (FoV) in the 4D PC, a size of a range dimension in the 4D PC, or a size of a Doppler dimension in the 4D PC (Stettiner, ¶127 and 156).
As per claim 48, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to identify a selected radio resource from a plurality of radio resources to communicate the radar signals, and to determine the PC dimension size based on the value of the interference-based parameter corresponding to the selected radio resource (Stettiner, Fig. 43 showing communication lines).
As per claim 49, Stettiner further discloses the apparatus of claim 31 comprising a transmitter to transmit (Tx) radar Tx signals, and a receiver to receive (Rx) radar Rx signals based on the radar Tx signals, wherein the radar data is based on the radar Rx signals (Stettiner, Fig. 19).
As per the limitations of claim 51, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 44 and 45 above.
As per the limitations of claim 53, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 46 above.
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.
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