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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 13 are merged into the same paragraph. These two claims should be listed separately.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,7-10,12,13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reial et al. (US 20250355110 A1), hereinafter Reial.
Regarding claim 1, Reial discloses
A method (see paragraph 0006, “A first aspect of the disclosure comprises methods implemented by a wireless communication device of detecting a low power radar signal transmitted in multiple parts interspersed between communication signals. In one embodiment, the method comprises receiving the radar signal in parts over multiple, discontinuous time periods.”) comprising:
receiving a plurality of reference signals (see Fig. 4, REF-SEQUENCE (TX SAMPLES) are the reference signals received by units 40, further see Fig. 5, REF-SEQUENCE (TX SAMPLES)) and a plurality of sensing signals on a plurality of non-overlapping wireless channels of a wireless network (see Fig. 4, RX samples received by units 42, further see Fig. 5, RX SAMPLES where the signals are received over multiple sessions (i.e. non-overlapping wireless channels of a wireless network, further see paragraph 0076, “FIG. 5 illustrates a two-stage correlator 38 in more detail, where each stage produces a partial correlation result for one time period. Each stage includes a delay unit 40 for each hypothesized delay with a corresponding set of multiplication nodes 46 and accumulator 48. Radar sessions 1 and 2 are shown during which correlation and accumulation is performed. Between them is a communication session during which no radar receive sample processing is performed, e.g., to avoid interference from communication signals.”);
determining a plurality of channel transfer functions (CTF)s based on one of the plurality of reference signals and a corresponding one of the plurality of sensing signals (see Figs. 4 and 5, plurality of correlation results determined by units 42 are indeed “a plurality of channel transfer functions”; further see paragraphs 0076-0077, “FIG. 5 illustrates a two-stage correlator 38 in more detail, where each stage produces a partial correlation result for one time period. Each stage includes a delay unit 40 for each hypothesized delay with a corresponding set of multiplication nodes 46 and accumulator 48. Radar sessions 1 and 2 are shown during which correlation and accumulation is performed. Between them is a communication session during which no radar receive sample processing is performed, e.g., to avoid interference from communication signals. In the example, the partial correlation result Ck for session k (k=1 or 2) and hypothesized delay dm (m=1 or 2) is produced as a sum of products of the received samples and correspondingly delayed reference samples.”);
correcting each of the plurality of CTFs to generate a plurality of corrected CTFs (see paragraph 0065, “The equalizer 32 is an optional component to compensate for the frequency response of the RF front end 68 as hereinafter described. In this example, it is assumed that the radar reflection is received without interference from a signal. The received radar signal for the reflection is input to the subtraction circuit 36 following equalization if an equalizer is present 32. A clean copy of the transmitted radar signal is input to the interference estimator 34 along with an estimate of the crosstalk channel C between the output of the RF transmitter 66 to the input of the RF receiver 64. The interference estimator 34 generates an estimate/of the interference attributable to the transmit signal leakage based on the clean radar transmit signals and the channel estimate C, and outputs the interference estimate/to the subtraction circuit 36. The subtraction circuit 36 subtracts the estimated interference from the received radar reflection to at least partially cancel the interference attributable to transmit signal leakage and outputs the reduced interference signal to the correlator 38. The correlator 38 receives the transmitted radar signal as an input and correlates the reduced interference signal with the transmitted radar signal to detect the reflected radar signal R.”, where this process is performed for each of the plurality of correlation results in Fig. 4);
merging the plurality of corrected CTFs to produce a merged CTF (see Fig. 4 accumulator 44); and
sensing one or more objects within the wireless network based on the merged CTF (see paragraph 0082, “The correlation-based detection is typically performed repeatedly for different radar beam directions to achieve spatial/angular resolution in sensing. Spatial directivity may be applied at the transmit, the receive side, or both. The correlation peak detection (and possibly resulting object presence and distance identification) is then applied to each spatial direction. The set of per-direction results can then be jointly processed and aggregated for spatial imaging or other applications.”).
Regarding claim 3, Reial further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the reference signal determines a transmission time and a shape of a transmitted signal associated with the plurality of sensing signals (see paragraph 0065, “A clean copy of the transmitted radar signal is input to the interference estimator 34 along with an estimate of the crosstalk channel C between the output of the RF transmitter 66 to the input of the RF receiver 64.”, where a copy of the transmitted radar signal (i.e. a transmission time and a shape of a transmitted signal associated with the plurality of sensing signals) is used to determine delay in the reflected signal).
Regarding claim 4, Reial further discloses
The method claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing signals comprise a parasitic signal caused by an internal coupling within a transceiver and an antenna coupling between a plurality of transceivers (see paragraph 0065, “A clean copy of the transmitted radar signal is input to the interference estimator 34 along with an estimate of the crosstalk channel C between the output of the RF transmitter 66 to the input of the RF receiver 64.”, where crosstalk is “a parasitic signal”).
Regarding claim 7, Reial further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of non-overlapping wireless channels include a first non-overlapping wireless channel, the corrected CTF associated with the first non-overlapping wireless channel being generated based on a first measurement at a first time period (see Fig. 5, first non-overlapping wireless channel is the set of first measurements at a first time period (i.e. RADAD RX session 2)), and the corrected CTF associated with the first non-overlapping wireless channel being used to determine a new corrected CTF associated with a second measurement at a second time period (see Fig. 5, RADAR RX session 2 uses corrected correlation measurements from the first session to determine a new corrected correlation results during the second session).
Regarding claim 8, Reial further discloses
The method of claim 7, wherein the corrected CTF associated with the first non-overlapping wireless channel is compared from the new corrected CTF associated with the second measurement at the second time period to determine a change in an environment between the first time period and the second time period (see Fig. 5, the results are compared at accumulator 44 to determine a change in the environment from the first and second sessions).
Regarding claim 9, Reial further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the wireless network is a wireless local area network (WLAN) (see paragraph 0032, “More generally, the wireless communication device 10 could operate according to any standard now known or later developed including without limitation Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), Long Term Evolution (LTE), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), or 6th Generation (6G).”).
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) ) 2,5,11,14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reial et al. (US 20250355110 A1) in view of Asok Kumar et al. (US 12332369 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Reial discloses [Note: what Reial fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, wherein the correcting each of the plurality of CTFs comprises:
determining a peak of a frequency spectrum associated with each of the plurality of CTFs, wherein the peak of the frequency spectrum corresponds to a delay distance (see paragraph 0067, “As an additional improvement, the baseband interference cancellation circuitry may further subtract stronger echoes from the received signal to facilitate detection of further, weaker reflections. The signal to subtract may be estimated by deconvolution and filtering of the correlation response for the delay range of the echo of interest and convolving the extracted channel response with the transmitted signal.”);
Asok Kumar discloses,
determining, based on the peak of the frequency spectrum, a delay (see Fig. 5, peaks in the frequency spectrum, where each peak corresponds to a time delay); and
subtracting the delay from a phase of a subcarrier of each of the plurality of CTFs so that the peak of a frequency spectrum corresponds to a zero distance (see Col. 12, lines 21-36, “Referring to FIG. 5, with further reference to FIG. 4, a graph 500 of an example receive signal is shown. The graph 500 includes a relative power axis 502, a time axis 504, and a signal response function 506. The signal response function 506 represents the signal detected by the receive antenna 404. A first peak 508 is based on the transmission leakage 410, and a second peak 510 is based on the reflected signal 412b. The RF receiver 416 (and the other receive chains 420, 422) may be configured to reduce the receive gain for the duration of the transmission of the RF signal 412a. For example, one or more amplifier components (e.g., Low Noise Amplifiers (LNAs)) in the receivers may be configured with adjustable gain functionality. The receive gain may be reduced to lessen the impact of the leakage on the receive chains. Other iterative cancellation algorithms may be used to reduce the impact of the first peak 508 and improve the detection of the second peak 510.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by Reial with Asok Kumar to cancel the leakage signal (i.e. crosstalk) in the frequency spectrum so that the peak is removed and corresponds to a zero distance. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems to remove leakage signal effects in received signal responses. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove noise in the system to generated more accurate measurement data.
Regarding claim 5, Reial discloses [Note: what Reial fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 4, wherein an amplitude value of the parasitic signal is smaller than an amplitude value of the reference signal (see paragraph 0065, “A clean copy of the transmitted radar signal is input to the interference estimator 34 along with an estimate of the crosstalk channel C between the output of the RF transmitter 66 to the input of the RF receiver 64. The interference estimator 34 generates an estimate/of the interference attributable to the transmit signal leakage based on the clean radar transmit signals and the channel estimate C, and outputs the interference estimate/to the subtraction circuit 36. The subtraction circuit 36 subtracts the estimated interference from the received radar reflection to at least partially cancel the interference attributable to transmit signal leakage and outputs the reduced interference signal to the correlator 38. The correlator 38 receives the transmitted radar signal as an input and correlates the reduced interference signal with the transmitted radar signal to detect the reflected radar signal R. The correlator output R can be compared to a threshold to detect presence of a reflection.”; NOTE: leakage signal due to cross talk is indeed “smaller” in amplitude that the reference signal (i.e. the transmitted signal) as it’s a fraction of the reference signal),
Asok Kumar discloses,
a first peak of each of the plurality of CTFs corresponds to the parasitic signal (see Fig. 5, peaks in the frequency spectrum, where the first peak corresponds to the leakage signal (i.e. crosstalk)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by Reial with Asok Kumar to cancel the leakage signal (i.e. crosstalk) in the frequency spectrum so that the first peak in the frequency response corresponds to the leakage signal (i.e. crosstalk). Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems to remove leakage signal effects in received signal responses. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove noise in the system to generated more accurate measurement data.
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reial et al. (US 20250355110 A1) in view of Miyanaga et al. (US 10243640 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Reial discloses [Note: what Reial fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Miyanaga discloses,
averaging the plurality of corrected CTFs to generate an averaged corrected CTFs (see Col. 10, lines 7-10, “The correction control unit 20 then, as in equation (18), obtains the average value of the N number of correction values d.sub.2n obtained after the adjustment.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by Reial with Miyanaga to average the plurality of corrected CTFs to generate an averaged corrected CTFs. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems to remove leakage signal effects in received signal responses. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove noise in the system to generated more accurate measurement data.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648