DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Applicant purports that the term “signal probe” is not indefinite and should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In support of their argument the Applicant further purports that the Examiner’s “conclusion is not supported by any evidence or any serious attempt to construe the meaning of the term, and further confuses breadth with indefiniteness,” citing the website Wikipedia for a definition of “test probe.” In response the Examiner points to the previously filled 112b rejection. As was set forth in the in the previously filled nonfinal rejection, the drawings filed 12/28/2023 make clear that the “signal probe” is a hardware component that couples the “cellular transceiver” circuitry to the “automotive radar sensor.” The existence of the claimed probe was not set forth as indefinite. Instead, the claimed use of probing an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles using a signal probe was indicated as indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art understands “a radar signal” as a radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic wave transmitted from a radar antenna toward a target, which is then reflected back to the radar receiver. The claimed action of probing a signal suggests means for collecting the transient electromagnetic wave. Neither the specification or drawings clarify how a hardware component that couples the “cellular transceiver” circuitry to the “automotive radar sensor” may collect transient electromagnetic waves reflected back to the radar receiver from a target object. The aforementioned limitation is not simply broad, but is indefinite as it claims a contradiction that blurs the definition of the “signal probe.” The Examiner maintains the 112b rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on AGARDH and the rejection of dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 103, the Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose “an amplifier coupled to the signal probe” as recited by independent claims 19 and 33 and subject matter recited in dependent claims 20 and 26. With respect to claim(s) 19 and 33, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the Applicants arguments regarding claim 26 and paragraph [0072] of AGARDH, the Applicant purports that “None of this has anything to do with a signal strength measurement result.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As corroborated in the applicants’ arguments on page 13 of their remarks, paragraph [0072] deals with triggering an uplink data transmission of a “buffer status report“ from a User Equipment(UE) to a base station. Paragraph [0072] clarifies, “a buffer status report indicating data which the terminal UE1 is desirous to transmit in the UL.” Paragraph [0041] clarifies that the “desirous” data may include the power level of the received radar signal. As AGARDH discloses initiating an uplink transmission upon gathering “desirous” data which may include “power level,” the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 26.
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.
Claim 19-36 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.
Regarding claim 19 and similarly claim 33, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “signal probe.” As claimed it is unclear what the “signal probe” explicitly is or how it could be configured to “probe an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. A review of the specification sets forth the term ” signal probe.” Review of the specification reveals on Page 6 lines 21-22 “The signal probe 131 may be a high-pass filter or a duplexer with low-pass and high-pass filters,“ but the examiner can find no further clarification regarding “probe an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles. “Figures 1-5 of the drawings filed 12/28/2023 reveal that the “signal probe” is a hardware component that couples the “cellular transceiver” circuitry to the “automotive radar sensor,” but additionally does not provide explicit definition of how the signal probe might be configured to “probe an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles.” One of ordinary skill in the art understands “a radar signal” as a radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic wave transmitted from a radar antenna toward a target, which is then reflected back to the radar receiver. The claimed action of probing a signal suggests means for collecting the transient electromagnetic wave. Neither the specification or drawings clarify how a hardware component that couples the “cellular transceiver” circuitry to the “automotive radar sensor” may collect transient electromagnetic waves reflected back to the radar receiver from a target object. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the “signal probe” as disclosed by the specification and clearly disclose what the limitation “probe an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles” means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification. For examination purposes the term “signal probe” as recited by claims 19 and 33 will be interpreted as a hardware component that couples the “cellular transceiver” circuitry to the “automotive radar sensor.”
Claims 20-32 and 34-36 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent
claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 19, 26, 28, 31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US20220349984) in view of Russell(US6114985A).
Regarding claim 19, AGARDH discloses
A combined cellular transceiver and automotive radar sensor module comprising a cellular transceiver and an automotive radar sensor (“ In accordance with the solutions proposed herein, radar probing 130, or operation, is carried out in the terminal UE1 using the same wireless chipset 313 as for communication signaling and data transmission 120” [0061]), wherein the cellular transceiver comprises a receiver and a transmitter (“The radio communication terminal UE1 is thus configured to act as a radar device” [0062]), the automotive radar sensor comprises a measurement receiver (“receiver 315” [0062]), and wherein the measurement receiver comprises: a signal probe coupled to an antenna element comprised in the cellular transceiver, wherein the signal probe is configured to probe an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles (“radar probing 130” [0042]); […] a power sensor coupled to an output of the amplifier and configured to receive an amplified radar signal from the amplifier and measure the signal strength of the automotive radar signal (“Signal properties of the received signal echoes may then be analyzed”, “The signal properties may include […] power level” [0041]).
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose an amplifier coupled to the signal probe forming part of the receiver and transmitter of a cellular transceiver. Russell discloses, an amplifier (FIG.8, Part.224) coupled to the signal probe (FIG.8, Part.223) and not forming part of the receiver and transmitter of the cellular transceiver (FIG.8, Part.203), the amplifier being configured to receive and amplify the radar signal output from the signal probe (“power divider 223 and the input to amplifier 224” [col.13, ll.36-37]).
Russell teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Russell to incorporate the features of an amplifier coupled to the signal probe forming part of the receiver and transmitter of the cellular transceiver so as to gain the advantage of improving signal gain. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 26, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH discloses, a determining unit configured to cause actions to be performed based on the signal strength measurement result of the automotive radar signal and/or the second harmonic signal of the transmitter (“The need for UL transmission of data may also be triggered by the terminal UE1, e.g. in a buffer status report indicating data which the terminal UE1 is desirous to transmit in the UL” [0072] & “A receiver in the UE1 is configured to listen for the transmitted radar signal to sense receive properties of echoes. […] The signal properties may include time of arrival, direction of arrival, power level etc. of the signal.” [0041])
Regarding claim 28, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH discloses, A communication device comprising one, two or more combined modules of claim 19. (FIG.4, Parts, 316 & 313).
Regarding claim 31, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all the limitations of claim 28. AGARDH discloses, a user interface configured to send a signal to a user of the communication device based on the measurements of the one or more automotive radar signals (“The terminal UE1 may further comprise […] a user interface” [0052]).
Regarding claim 33, AGARDH discloses
A method performed in a communication device for measuring a signal strength of me or more automotive radar signals sent from one or more automobiles (“Signal properties of the received signal echoes may then be analyzed”, “The signal properties may include […] power level” [0041]), wherein the communication device comprises one or more combined cellular transceiver and automotive radar sensor modules (“ In accordance with the solutions proposed herein, radar probing 130, or operation, is carried out in the terminal UE1 using the same wireless chipset 313 as for communication signaling and data transmission 120” [0061]), wherein each of the combined modules comprises a cellular transceiver and an automotive radar sensor (“The radio communication terminal UE1 is thus configured to act as a radar device” [0062]), wherein the cellular transceiver: comprises a receiver and a transmitter (“receiver 315” [0062]), the automotive radar sensor comprises a measurement receiver comprising a signal probe (“radar probing 130” [0042]), […] and a power sensor (“Signal properties of the received signal echoes may then be analyzed”, “The signal properties may include […] power level” [0041]), and the method comprises: probing an automotive radar signal sent from one or more automobiles by the signal probe coupled to an antenna element of the transceiver (“radar probing 130” [0042]); amplifying the radar signal received from the signal probe in the amplifier coupled to the signal probe(“radar probing may be executed using the same radio transceiver, including to transmit a radar signal and sense receive properties of a reflection of the radar signal” [0037]; measuring the signal strength of the automotive radar signal in the power sensor coupled to an output of the amplifier (“Signal properties of the received signal echoes may then be analyzed”, “The signal properties may include […] power level” [0041]).
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose an amplifier coupled to the signal probe forming part of the receiver and transmitter of a cellular transceiver. Russell discloses, an amplifier (FIG.8, Part.224) coupled to the signal probe (FIG.8, Part.223) and not forming part of the receiver and transmitter of the cellular transceiver(“power divider 223 and the input to amplifier 224” [col.13, ll.36-37]).
Russell teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Russell to incorporate the features of an amplifier coupled to the signal probe forming part of the receiver and transmitter of the cellular transceiver so as to gain the advantage of improving signal gain. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 35, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all the limitations of claim 33. AGARDH discloses, converting each of the one or more automotive radar signals to a digital signal (“, digital signal processor (DSP) hardware” [0033]); estimating positions of one or more approaching automobiles (“ The radar probing 130 can be used in order to determine the position and/or velocity of passive objects in the vicinity of the terminal UE1“ [0045]) based on locations of two or more combined modules comprised in a communication device and the measurements of the one or more automotive radar signals from the measurement receivers (“If the radar device knows its position, velocity, and orientation, it is possible to compute the absolute position and velocity also for the reflecting object” [0003]).
Claims 22-25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US20220349984) as modified by Russell(US6114985A) as applied in claims 19 and 33 above, and further in view of WEISSMAN(US20190080612A1)
Regarding claim 22, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose two or more receiver chains wherein the measurement receiver is configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals. WEISSMAN discloses the combined module wherein, the cellular transceiver comprises two or more receiver chains (FIG.3, Parts.330 & 335), and wherein the measurement receiver is configured to use the same receiver chains to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals for further processing (FIG.3, Part.330 ADC).
WEISSMAN teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of WEISSMAN to incorporate the features of two or more receiver chains wherein the measurement receiver is configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals so as to gain the advantage of improving object discrimination([0002], WEISSMAN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 23, AGARDH as modified by Russell and WEISSMAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 22. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose each receiver chain comprising a mixer stage. WEISSMAN discloses the combined module wherein, each receiver chain comprises a mixer stage (FIG. 3, Parts 330 [mixer]& 335[mixer]), and wherein the output signal from the amplifier of the measurement receiver is coupled to a first mixer stage and then to a second mixer stage through switches to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals for further processing (“The combined data is passed through an RF mixer with transmit frequency utilized by the car radar (F.sub.c1) (see FIG. 17A) as the second input to the mixer.” [0077]).
WEISSMAN teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of WEISSMAN to incorporate the features of each receiver chain comprising a mixer stage so as to gain the advantage of improving object discrimination ([0002], WEISSMAN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 24, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose a measurement receiver further comprising a down-conversion chain. WEISSMAN discloses the combined module wherein, the measurement receiver further comprises a down-conversion chain to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals to digital signals (FIG.3, Part.330 [ADC]), wherein the down-conversion chain comprises a mixer coupled to an output of the amplifier through a switch (FIG.3, Part.320), a frequency multiplier (FIG.3, Parts.310 & 330)and an analog to digital converter (FIG.3, Part.330 [ADC]).
WEISSMAN teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of WEISSMAN to incorporate the features of the measurement receiver further comprising a down-conversion chain so as to gain the advantage of improving object discrimination ([0002], WEISSMAN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose two or more receiver chains wherein the measurement receiver is configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals. WEISSMAN discloses the combined module wherein, the measurement receiver further comprises a down-conversion chain (FIG.3, Part.335 [ADC]) coupled to an output of the amplifier through a switch (FIG.3, Part.320) and configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals to digital signals, wherein the down-conversion chain comprises (FIG.3, Part.335 [ADC]) a first mixer (FIG.3, Part.335 [Mixer]), an offset local oscillator (FIG.3, Part.310), a second mixer and a frequency multiplier (FIG.3, Parts.310 & 335), and an analog to digital converter (FIG.3, Part.335 [ADC]).
WEISSMAN teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of WEISSMAN to incorporate the features of two or more receiver chains wherein the measurement receiver is configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals so as to gain the advantage of improving object discrimination([0002], WEISSMAN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 30, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. AGARDH discloses wherein, the communication device comprises two or more combined modules (FIG.4, Parts, 316 & 313). […] the communication device further comprises a processing unit (“The logic 310 may include a processing device 311, including one or multiple processors, microprocessors” [0049]) configured to process the digital signals of the one or more automotive radar signals and estimate positions of one or more approaching automobiles (“ The radar probing 130 can be used in order to determine the position and/or velocity of passive objects in the vicinity of the terminal UE1“ [0045]) based on the locations of the one or more combined modules and the measurements of the one or more automotive radar signals from the measurement receivers (“If the radar device knows its position, velocity, and orientation, it is possible to compute the absolute position and velocity also for the reflecting object” [0003])
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the down-conversion chains of claim 30. WEISSMAN discloses the combined module wherein, the measurement receivers in the two or more combined modules each comprises a down-conversion chain to convert each of the one or more automotive radar signals to a digital signal (FIG.3, Part.335 [ADC])
WEISSMAN teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of WEISSMAN to incorporate the features of two or more receiver chains wherein the measurement receiver is configured to down convert one or more received automotive radar signals so as to gain the advantage of improving object discrimination([0002], WEISSMAN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US20220349984) as modified by, Russell(US6114985A) as applied in claims 19 and 33 above, and further in view of ZIVKOVIC (EP2846172A1).
Regarding claim 27, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 26. AGARDH discloses wherein, the actions to be performed comprise any one or a combination of: initiating an optimization process for the transmitter to reduce its second harmonic signal transmitting; initiating a shutting down of data and/or voice communication of a communication device comprising the combined module (“The logic 310 may further be configured to control the wireless communication chipset 313 to inhibit transmission of communication signals from the communication terminal during said probing period” [0063])
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose wherein a signal is sent to inform a user of automobile proximity. ZIVKOVIC discloses the combined module wherein, initiating a signal sending to inform automobile proximity to a user of a communication device comprising the combined module (“generate a signal to trigger the alarm in respect of the other sensed objects” [0006])
ZIVKOVIC teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of ZIVKOVIC to incorporate the features of sending a signal to inform automobile proximity to a user so as to gain the advantage of improving pedestrian safety ([0025], ZIVKOVIC). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 29, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 31. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose wherein two or more combined modules are spatially placed in different locations of the communication device. ZIVKOVIC discloses the combined module wherein, the communication device comprises two or more combined modules and wherein the two or more combined modules are spatially placed at different locations of the communication device to measure one or more automotive radar signals (FIG.2, Parts 7a & 7n).
ZIVKOVIC teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of ZIVKOVIC to incorporate the features of two or more combined modules being spatially placed in different locations of the communication device so as to gain the advantage of improving movement observation ([0041], ZIVKOVIC). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 32, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 31. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal sent to a user is a vibration, sound or visual sign. ZIVKOVIC discloses the combined module wherein, the signal is any one or a combination of a vibration, a sound, or a visual signal to inform the user of a vehicle in proximity of the user (“The preferred warning mechanisms are directional sound or directional tactile feedback.” [0068])
ZIVKOVIC teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of ZIVKOVIC to incorporate the features of a signal sent to a user being a vibration, sound or visual sign to a user so as to gain the advantage of improving pedestrian safety ([0025], ZIVKOVIC). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 34 AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 33. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose measuring a signal strength of a harmonic signal. ZIVKOVIC discloses the method further comprising, measuring a signal strength of a harmonic signal of the transmitter in the power sensor (“perform a filtering operation on the sensed objects to ignore sensed objects based on a determination that collision between the user and the sensed objected is not expected” [0006]).
ZIVKOVIC teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of ZIVKOVIC to incorporate the features of measuring a signal strength of a harmonic signal so as to gain the advantage of improving pedestrian safety ([0025], ZIVKOVIC). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 36, AGARDH as modified by Russell discloses all of the limitations of claim 33AGARDH discloses, causing actions to be performed based on the signal strength measurement result of the automotive radar signal and/or the second harmonic signal of the transmitter, wherein the actions to be performed comprise any one or a combination of[…]; initiating an optimization process for the transmitter to reduce its second harmonic signal transmitting; initiating a shutting down of data and/or voice communication of a communication device comprising the combined module(“The logic 310 may further be configured to control the wireless communication chipset 313 to inhibit transmission of communication signals from the communication terminal during said probing period” [0063]).
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose wherein a signal is sent to inform a user of automobile proximity. ZIVKOVIC discloses the method wherein, initiating a signal sending to inform automobile proximity to a user of a communication device comprising the combined module (“generate a signal to trigger the alarm in respect of the other sensed objects” [0006])
ZIVKOVIC teaches in the same field of automotive radar detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Russell with the teachings of ZIVKOVIC to incorporate the features of sending a signal to inform automobile proximity to a user so as to gain the advantage of improving pedestrian safety ([0025], ZIVKOVIC). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 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 amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Ding(US20150061921A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0029] “The receiver side 704 of the radar 700 may include a receiving antenna 736, a low noise amplifier 738, a receiver power splitter 740.”
Conclusion
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights