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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 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.
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) 1, 3, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan in view of US 20250379619 A1 to Smida.
Regarding claim 1,
US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan teaches:
A radar signal processing method based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), the radar signal processing method comprising:
transmitting an OFDM (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) signal to at least one target; (Fig. 6; [0070-71] – “An OFDM generation device 54 generates digital OFDM symbols… Phase modulator 18 encodes the signal for each transmitting antenna 10… the encoded signals are emitted via transmitting antennas 10”)
receiving an analog reception signal reflected from the at least one target based on the transmitting; (Fig. 6; [0071-72] – “Received signal 32′ contains a sum of OFDM symbols that are delayed due to the signal propagation time and Doppler-shifted due to the relative speed of radar objects 28.”)
converting the analog reception signal into a digital reception signal; (Fig. 6; [0073] – “received signals of a particular code instance that are downmixed with the signal of HF oscillator 14 at mixer 34 and digitized by A/D converter 36.”)
obtaining a first velocity of the at least one target based on the digital reception signal; ([0073] – the sequence of successive code blocks 26, in order to obtain an ambiguous speed spectrum in the particular dimension. The evaluation of the obtained two-dimensional distance-speed spectrum with ambiguity of the speed is then carried out by object detection device 42 corresponding to the example in FIGS. 2 and 3,” [0057] – “computes an estimated value of periodically ambiguous speed v.sub.amb, corresponding to an estimation of the Doppler shift of the signals (step S24). The radar system is designed for a speed measuring range that exceeds width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range, and which can be, for example, a multiple width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range. Actual speed v of the radar object within the speed measuring range for which the radar system is designed can be equal to v.sub.amb, or can differ from v.sub.amb by an integer multiple of v.sub.u, corresponding, for example, to one of the values v.sub.amb−v.sub.u, v.sub.amb, v.sub.amb v.sub.u, v.sub.amb+2 v.sub.u. First velocity may correspond to any velocity ambiguity hypothesis) and
processing the digital reception signal based on the first velocity to obtain a recovery signal having reduced inter-channel interference. ([0073] – “the further processing in processing branches 44 for the particular ambiguity hypotheses is carried out.” [0058-60] – “Based on ambiguous speed estimation v.sub.amb, further processing of the signals now takes place in different processing branches 44 for different ambiguity hypotheses, in each case assuming a Doppler shift corresponding to the “actual” speed of radar object 28 that results for the particular ambiguity hypothesis… The Doppler shift-compensated signals of the code instances are decoded by a decoder 48 (step S32) by multiplying the signal vector by a decoding matrix. The result of the decoding is a vector of the signal components associated with the different transmitting antennas 10.”)
US 20250379619 A1 to Smida teaches:
transmitting an OFDM communication signal to at least one target; ([0057] – “In each subframe, the BS transmits mm Wave 5G NR OFDM waveforms to the DL users comprising Q OFDM symbols with P active subcarriers and Δf subcarrier spacing. In addition to the DL communication, these OFDM symbols are reflected by multiple radar targets and received at the BS RX, which is utilized for tracking targets across subframes.”)
receiving an analog reception signal reflected from the at least one target based on the transmitting; ([0057] – “In each subframe, the BS transmits mm Wave 5G NR OFDM waveforms to the DL users comprising Q OFDM symbols with P active subcarriers and Δf subcarrier spacing. In addition to the DL communication, these OFDM symbols are reflected by multiple radar targets and received at the BS RX, which is utilized for tracking targets across subframes.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Smida’s known technique to Hakobyan’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Hakobyan teaches a base method of radar transmission, reception, and processing of OFDM signals; (2) Smida teaches a specific technique using OFDM signals concurrently for both communication and radar purposes; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 13 and 19,
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are apparatus / computer-readable non-transitory storage medium claims corresponding to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 13 and 19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20 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 any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan; US 20220334240 A1 to Wu; US 12498459 B2 to Akamine; US 20220187438 A1 to Overdevest) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20. See analysis regarding claim 2 below. Claim(s) 14 and 20 recite similar limitation(s) to claim 2 and is/are indicated as allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Dependent claims indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims.
Regarding claim 2,
Hakobyan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Hakobyan further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the first velocity comprises:
obtaining a plurality of velocity candidates; ([0073] – “the sequence of successive code blocks 26, in order to obtain an ambiguous speed spectrum in the particular dimension. The evaluation of the obtained two-dimensional distance-speed spectrum with ambiguity of the speed is then carried out by object detection device 42 corresponding to the example in FIGS. 2 and 3,” [0057] – “computes an estimated value of periodically ambiguous speed v.sub.amb, corresponding to an estimation of the Doppler shift of the signals (step S24). The radar system is designed for a speed measuring range that exceeds width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range, and which can be, for example, a multiple width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range. Actual speed v of the radar object within the speed measuring range for which the radar system is designed can be equal to v.sub.amb, or can differ from v.sub.amb by an integer multiple of v.sub.u, corresponding, for example, to one of the values v.sub.amb−v.sub.u, v.sub.amb, v.sub.amb v.sub.u, v.sub.amb+2 v.sub.u.”)
Hakobyan does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
US 20220334240 A1 to Wu teaches:
obtaining a plurality of velocity candidates; (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4-5; [0021-23] – “for each transmitter the modulo-2π spectrums are unfolded into multiple ±2π extent (for example ±4π, ±6π, ±8π, . . . ).” Velocity candidates correspond to velocity at Doppler spectrum peak for each multiple ±2π extent, i.e., for each graph of Fig. 3B)
obtaining a plurality ofvelocity spectrum candidates corresponding to the plurality of velocity candidates; (Fig. 3B)
detecting peak values of the plurality of distance velocity map candidates; and (Fig. 3B [0020-24] – “spectral peak”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wu’s known technique to Hakobyan’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Hakobyan teaches a base method of determining Doppler alias hypotheses and processing signals based on a hypothesis prior to choosing a correct hypothesis; (2) Wu teaches a specific technique of determining Doppler hypotheses and choosing a correct hypothesis based on a spectrogram of each hypothesis prior to continuing processing with a the chosen Doppler and associated compensations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
The prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
obtaining a plurality of distance velocity map candidates corresponding to the plurality of velocity candidates;
detecting peak values of the plurality of distance velocity map candidates; and
obtaining the first velocity as a first velocity candidate corresponding to a largest peak value among the peak values, the first velocity candidate being among the plurality of velocity candidates.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights