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 .
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 1-7 and 9-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the received signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim recites the limitation, “at least one…sensor signal,” making it unclear which specific signal “the received signal” refers to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the output signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because it is unclear whether the output signal refers to the electromagnetic output signal or another signal.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the start of the delay step.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites, “…based on a predetermined passive threshold value for the signal level or the signal power being above the determined signal level or by the determined signal power.” Due to the sentence construction, the term “by the determined signal power” lacks clarity.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the active time period is longer than the pauses between successive sensor signals of a sequence of sensor signals that belong together of a radar frame.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, “the pauses between successive sensor signals.” Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, requires only “at least one…sensor signal.” Claim 6 does not positively recite that multiple sensor signals are received, thus resulting in insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, “the pauses between successive sensor signals. “
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claims 2-6 and 10 are further rejected due to their dependence from rejected claim 1.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffrey et al. (WO 2020/165191 A1), hereinafter Jeffrey, in view of Bok (WO 2020/157039 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Jeffrey teaches (note: what Jeffrey does not teach is struck through),
A testing device for testing a distance sensor that operates using electromagnetic waves (abs., “The invention relates to a testing device (1) for testing a distance sensor (2) that operates using electromagnetic waves”) (fig. 2, receiver 3), an emission element for emitting an electromagnetic output signal (fig. 2, transmitter 4); and a signal processing unit (fig. 2, time delay circuits 5a and 5b and associated structures); wherein, during a simulation operation, the received signal or a received signal derived from the received signal is guided via a signal processing unit with a predefinable time delay to form a time-delayed signal as a simulated reflection signal (p.6, para. 6, “The received signal SRX or a signal S'RX derived from the received signal SRX is passed through a time delay circuit 5, with the time delay circuit 5 being able to preset a time delay in a certain range. The input signal of the time delay circuit 5 is thus time-delayed to form a time-delayed signal Sdelay. The time-delayed signal Sdelay or a signal S'delay derived from the time-delayed signal Sdelay is then emitted as the simulated reflection signal STX via the radiation element 4.”), wherein the time-delayed signal or a time- delayed signal derived from the time-delayed signal is emitted as the output signal via the emission element (p. 6, para. 6, “The time-delayed signal Sdelay or a signal S'delay derived from the time-delayed signal Sdelay is then emitted as the simulated reflection signal STX via the radiation element 4.””), wherein the signal processing unit is configured to fully process a received temporally coherent and temporally limited sensor signal or a received temporally coherent and temporally limited sensor signal derived from the received sensor signal in a delay step with the predefinable time delay as a constant working time delay to form a time-delayed sensor signal, wherein the predefinable time delay was predefined at the start of the delay step (p. 6, para. 6, “…with the time delay circuit 5 being able to preset a time delay in a certain range” See also p. 7, para. 1, “In FIG. 1 it is indicated that the time delay tdelay to be achieved is fed to the time delay circuit 5 as information. For the implementation of the test device 1 shown here, it does not depend on the exact technical implementation of how the time delay circuit 5 this information is supplied exactly. Usually, the specification for the time delay to be set will come from an environment simulator which simulates the scene to be simulated with objects in the vicinity and provides corresponding position, speed and / or acceleration information about the objects in the environment.”).
Bok teaches,
A testing device for testing a distance sensor that operates using electromagnetic waves in the form of at least one temporally coherent and temporally limited sensor signal (p. 5, para. 6, “The proposed concepts for a moving target simulator with the requirement of a target movement (range walk) can e.g. to evaluate the performance of a radar system against moving targets with large time-bandwidth products and pulse compression. This is e.g. used with coherent pulse radars.” The examiner notes that a coherent pulse radar is understood to be both temporally coherent and temporally limited)…
Jeffrey and Bok are analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach methods for simulating radar signals. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coherent pulse signals of Bok in the testing device of Jeffrey because coherent pulse signals are a commonly-used type of radar signal. Thus, any device for testing a radar device would need to be able to deal with said signals.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, noting that both Jeffrey and Bok teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon (See Jeffrey, abs., “A large range of specifiable time delays can be covered because the time-delay circuit (5) comprises an analog delay segment (5a) having a specifiable time delay tdelay, soll and a digital delay segment (5b) having a likewise specifiable time delay tdelay.” See also Bok, p. 13, para. 7, “Examples may also be, or refer to, a computer program with program code for performing one or more of the above methods when the computer program is executed on a computer or processor.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Jeffrey in view of Bok teaches the device of claim 1. However, neither Jeffrey nor Bok teach,
…wherein, to detect ongoing processing of the received sensor signal or of the received sensor signal derived from the received sensor signal in the delay step, the signal processing unit is configured to determine a signal level or a signal power of the received signal or of the received signal derived from the received signal and, based on a predetermined active threshold value being exceeded by the determined signal level or by the determined signal power, the signal processing unit is configured to conclude that the received sensor signal or the received sensor signal derived from the received sensor signal is still being processed.
In reference to claim 2, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 6 are allowable because they depend upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Jeffrey in view of Bok teaches the device of claim 1. However, neither Jeffrey nor Bok teach,
…wherein, to detect the end of the delay step, the signal processing unit is configured to determine a signal level or a signal power of the received signal or of the received signal derived from the received signal and, if-based on a predetermined passive threshold value for the signal level or the signal power -being above the determined signal level or by the determined signal power, the signal processing unit concludes that no processing is taking place of the received sensor signal or the received sensor signal derived from the received sensor signal.
In reference to claim 4, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 10 are allowable because they depend upon claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vook et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0179043 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648