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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winfried (DE 10 2019 201 374 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Winfried teaches,
A method of wireless communication performed by a sensing node (p. 2, para. 1, “The present invention relates to a method for operating a plurality of radar sensors in a radar network”), comprising: receiving an indication to transmit a sensing reference signal (RS) (fig. 2, trigger. See also p. 3, para. 2, “In a preferred embodiment, in which the binary-coded information contains at least transmission parameters of the transmitting radar sensor, each radar sensor of the radar network receives CW signals with the information about the transmission parameters of other radar sensors of the radar network, processes the information, compares it with its own transmission parameters and adjusts it own”) having one or more scrambled continuous-wave waveform components (p. 3, para. 3, “When using the method for operating a multistatic FMCW radar, the FMCW radar signals of the transmitting radar sensor are each preceded in the same way by a CW signal, which in turn contains binary coded information to be transmitted.” The examiner notes that the preceding signal is scrambled, see para. 5 of the same page, “The binary coding of the information in the CW signal can be done by different modulation methods. Frequency shift keying (FSK) is preferably used, so that the CW signal is placed in front of the FMCW radar signal as an FSK signal. Another advantageous modulation option is to use a binary phase-modulated CW signal (BPSK-modulated CW) if frequency multipliers are not used.”); and transmitting a hybrid continuous-wave radar signal, wherein the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal comprises at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component (p. 3, para. 3, “When using the method for operating a multistatic FMCW radar, the FMCW radar signals of the transmitting radar sensor are each preceded in the same way by a CW signal, which in turn contains binary coded information to be transmitted.”).
Regarding claim 2, Winfried teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a first time duration, and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a second time duration different from the first time duration (p. 3, para. 5, “The CW signal (header) preceding the FMCW radar signal preferably has a constant known length. In this way, when this header is received, the start time of the FMCW radar signal can be determined for synchronization.” See also fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Winfried teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving signaling that indicates a predefined format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal to use for transmission, or selecting, absent signaling, the predefined format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal to use for the transmission (p. 3, para. 6, “When a further transmitting radar sensor is added to an existing radar network, which is operated with the proposed method - when transmitting the transmission parameters - the new radar sensor preferably first receives the signals of the (transmitting) radar sensors located in the radar network in order to adapt its transmission parameters accordingly. Only after this adjustment has the new radar sensor also started to send out signals.” The examiner notes that the signals of the transmitting radar sensors located in the radar network are being understood as “signaling that indicates a predefined format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal” because said signals are used by the receiving radar to “adapt its transmission parameters”).
Regarding claim 8,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving signaling corresponding to an RS configuration that indicates a format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal to use for transmission on at least one RS resource (p. 3, para. 6, “When a further transmitting radar sensor is added to an existing radar network, which is operated with the proposed method - when transmitting the transmission parameters - the new radar sensor preferably first receives the signals of the (transmitting) radar sensors located in the radar network in order to adapt its transmission parameters accordingly. Only after this adjustment has the new radar sensor also started to send out signals.” The examiner notes that the signals of the transmitting radar sensors located in the radar network are being understood as “signaling that indicates a predefined format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal” because said signals are used by the receiving radar to “adapt its transmission parameters”).
Regarding claim 9,
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component comprises a phase-coded (PC) frequency-modulated continuous wave (PC-FMCW) waveform component or a frequency domain-scrambled digital FMCW waveform component (p. 3, para. 5, “Frequency shift keying (FSK) is preferably used, so that the CW signal is placed in front of the FMCW radar signal as an FSK signal. Another advantageous modulation option is to use a binary phase-modulated CW signal (BPSK-modulated CW) if frequency multipliers are not used.” The examiner notes that a binary phase-modulated CW signal is understood to be a phase-coded CW signal and frequency shift keying is being understood to be a frequency-domain scrambling of the FMCW waveform component), and the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component comprises an FMCW waveform component (p. 3, para. 5, “The CW signal (header) preceding the FMCW radar signal preferably has a constant known length. In this way, when this header is received, the start time of the FMCW radar signal can be determined for synchronization.”).
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 10, 13, 15-16, 21-23, 25-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winfried in view of Kumari et al. (US 2023/0358853 A1), hereinafter Kumari.
Regarding claim 10, Winfried teaches (note: what Winfried does not teach is struck through),
A method of wireless communication performed by a sensing node (p. 2, para. 8, “The proposed method is used for radar networks or for multistatic radar from a plurality of radar sensors which emit and / or receive FMCW radar signals”), comprising: (p. 3, para. 3, “When using the method for operating a multistatic FMCW radar, the FMCW radar signals of the transmitting radar sensor are each preceded in the same way by a CW signal, which in turn contains binary coded information to be transmitted.” The examiner notes that the preceding signal is scrambled, see para. 5, “The binary coding of the information in the CW signal can be done by different modulation methods. Frequency shift keying (FSK) is preferably used, so that the CW signal is placed in front of the FMCW radar signal as an FSK signal. Another advantageous modulation option is to use a binary phase-modulated CW signal (BPSK-modulated CW) if frequency multipliers are not used.”).
Kumari teaches,
…transmitting an indication of support to receive a sensing reference signal (RS) having one or more scrambled continuous-wave waveform components (fig. 24, step 2432).
Winfried and Kumari are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Winfried with the transmission of an indication of support to receive a sensing reference signal having one or more scrambled continuous-wave waveform components of Kumari because the indication of support of Kumari indicates to other sensing nodes in a sensor network that a new node is capable of use with said sensor network.
Regarding claim 13, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the method of claim 10. Winfried further teaches,
…receiving signaling corresponding to an RS configuration that indicates one or more of: a format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal for transmission on at least one RS resource, one or more parameters associated with the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component, one or more parameters associated with the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component, information corresponding to scrambling associated with the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component, or any combination thereof (p. 3, para. 6, “When a further transmitting radar sensor is added to an existing radar network, which is operated with the proposed method - when transmitting the transmission parameters - the new radar sensor preferably first receives the signals of the (transmitting) radar sensors located in the radar network in order to adapt its transmission parameters accordingly. Only after this adjustment has the new radar sensor also started to send out signals. A radar sensor designed for operation with the proposed method contains a signal generating device which precedes the FMCW radar signal with a CW signal with the binary-coded information, preferably via the transmission parameters, and, in a preferred embodiment, a receiving and evaluating device which received from Signals from other radar sensors extract and evaluate the information transmitted in order to adapt their own transmission parameters if necessary.” The examiner notes that a radar device receiving signals from other radars and subsequently adapting its transmission parameters indicate that it is receiving at least one or more parameters associated with at least one unscrambled and at least one scrambled CW waveform component).
Regarding claim 15, Winfried teaches,
A sensing node…configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, an indication to transmit a sensing reference signal (RS) having one or more scrambled continuous-wave waveform components; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, a hybrid continuous-wave radar signal, wherein the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal comprises at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component.
For the above limitations, the same citations are used as in claim 1. Winfried further teaches (note: what Winfried does not teach is struck through),
A sensing node (fig. 2, radar sensor), comprising: (p. 2, para. 8, “Individual or all radar sensors in the radar network can also be designed as simultaneously transmitting and receiving radar sensors”); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (fig. 2, evaluation device 12), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to
Kumari teaches,
A sensing node (fig. 3, UE 350), comprising: one or more memories (fig. 3, memory 360); one or more transceivers (fig. 3, transceivers 354); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (fig. 3, controller/processor 359), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar sensing node of Winfried with the memories of Kumari. Memories are a common part of radar sensing nodes and, although Winfried is silent as to whether a memory is used in the radar sensor of fig. 2, it is reasonable in view of Kumari to consider the evaluation device 12 as containing both a processor and a memory.
Regarding claim 16, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 15. The additional limitations recited in claim 16 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 15. Otherwise, claim 21 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 22, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 15. Otherwise, claim 22 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 22. Winfried further teaches,
…wherein the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component comprises a number of scrambled continuous-wave waveform components based on an estimation of interference associated with the at least one RS resource (p. 3, para. 4, “This is made possible in the proposed method in that the frequency ramp of the FMCW radar signal (chirp) is preceded by a CW signal with binary-coded information, in this case via transmission parameters of this radar sensor, as a type of header. The information coded in binary form in this header preferably comprises synchronization data and information about the frequency ramp of the radar used, preferably also an identifier of the transmitting radar sensor. This information is transmitted to the other radar sensors, which then evaluate this information. The other radar sensors are then parameterized in such a way that trouble-free operation of all radar sensors in the radar network is possible. They also transmit a corresponding piece of information in the same way to the other radar sensors in a header preceding the respective FMCW radar signal. The transmission parameters of the individual radar sensors can be adjusted based on the information received from the other radar sensors, for example, such that the transmission parameters are adjusted with regard to the steepness of the frequency ramp and / or the starting time of the FMCW radar signal transmitted by the radar sensor.” The examiner notes that the scrambled continuous-wave waveform of the header of the other radar sensors is modified based on estimated interference, because it contains information about the FMCW signal and said FMCW signal is modified based on interference estimated based on the received CW header signal).
Regarding claim 25, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 15. Otherwise, claim 25 is rejected using the same reasoning and citations as claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, Winfried teaches (note: what Winfried does not teach is struck through),
A sensing node (fig. 2, radar sensor), comprising: (p. 2, para. 8, “Individual or all radar sensors in the radar network can also be designed as simultaneously transmitting and receiving radar sensors”); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (fig. 2, evaluation device 12), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to…
Kumari teaches,
A sensing node (fig. 3, UE 350), comprising: one or more memories (fig. 3, memory 360); one or more transceivers (fig. 3, transceivers 354); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (fig. 3, controller/processor 359), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to…
The examiner notes that the additional limitations of claim 26 are rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 10, above.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar sensing node of Winfried with the memories of Kumari. Memories are a common part of radar sensing nodes and, although Winfried is silent as to whether a memory is used in the radar sensor of fig. 2, it is reasonable in view of Kumari to consider the evaluation device 12 as containing both a processor and a memory.
Regarding claim 29, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the radar node of claim 26. Otherwise, claim 29 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 13.
Claims 11-12, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winfried in view of Kumari and further in view of Duan et al. (WO 2023/102301 A1), hereinafter Duan.
Regarding claim 11, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the method of claim 10. The combination of Winfried and Kumari does not teach,
…transmitting an indication for one or more tuning gaps between unscrambled continuous-wave waveform components and scrambled continuous-wave waveform components
Duan teaches,
…transmitting an indication for one or more tuning gaps between unscrambled continuous-wave waveform components and scrambled continuous-wave waveform components (para. 0096, “For example, in the UL/SL transmission scenario, the duration of the gap 950 may be signaled by a gNB and expressed in terms of a certain number of symbols. In some implementations, the duration of gap 950 and/or tuning gap 1060 may be specified in a technical standard (e.g., a 3GPP standard), and the entity that determines the gap duration (e.g., a gNB) may perform a lookup into a table storing a list of gap values to use for different situations in accordance with the technical standard. The table can be stored locally (e.g., in a memory of the gNB) or on a network device such as radar server 160 in FIG. 1. In other implementations, the entity that determines the duration of gap 950 or tuning gap 1060 may select the gap duration based on the capabilities of the transmitter. For example, prior to transmitting RRS1, the UE may have reported its capabilities to a gNB so that the gNB can take the UE’s capabilities into consideration when selecting the gap duration.”).
Duan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Winfried in view of Kumari with the tuning gap indication of Duan because tuning gap transmission ensures that the radar sensor is able to maintain phase continuity (see, e.g., Duan,. para. 0095).
Regarding claim 12, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the method of claim 10. The combination of Winfried and Kumari does not teach,
…transmitting an indication of a minimum tuning gap between an unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and a scrambled continuous-wave waveform component
Duan teaches,
…transmitting an indication of a minimum tuning gap between an unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and a scrambled continuous-wave waveform component (para. 0096, “For example, in the UL/SL transmission scenario, the duration of the gap 950 may be signaled by a gNB and expressed in terms of a certain number of symbols. In some implementations, the duration of gap 950 and/or tuning gap 1060 may be specified in a technical standard (e.g., a 3GPP standard), and the entity that determines the gap duration (e.g., a gNB) may perform a lookup into a table storing a list of gap values to use for different situations in accordance with the technical standard. The table can be stored locally (e.g., in a memory of the gNB) or on a network device such as radar server 160 in FIG. 1. In other implementations, the entity that determines the duration of gap 950 or tuning gap 1060 may select the gap duration based on the capabilities of the transmitter. For example, prior to transmitting RRS1, the UE may have reported its capabilities to a gNB so that the gNB can take the UE’s capabilities into consideration when selecting the gap duration.”).
Duan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Winfried in view of Kumari with the tuning gap indication of Duan because tuning gap transmission ensures that the radar sensor is able to maintain phase continuity (see, e.g., Duan,. para. 0095).
Regarding claim 24, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the sensing node of claim 22. The combination of Winfried and Kumari does not teach,
…wherein the format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal indicates at least one tuning gap between the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component
Duan teaches,
…wherein the format of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal indicates at least one tuning gap between the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component (para. 0096, “For example, in the UL/SL transmission scenario, the duration of the gap 950 may be signaled by a gNB and expressed in terms of a certain number of symbols. In some implementations, the duration of gap 950 and/or tuning gap 1060 may be specified in a technical standard (e.g., a 3GPP standard), and the entity that determines the gap duration (e.g., a gNB) may perform a lookup into a table storing a list of gap values to use for different situations in accordance with the technical standard. The table can be stored locally (e.g., in a memory of the gNB) or on a network device such as radar server 160 in FIG. 1. In other implementations, the entity that determines the duration of gap 950 or tuning gap 1060 may select the gap duration based on the capabilities of the transmitter. For example, prior to transmitting RRS1, the UE may have reported its capabilities to a gNB so that the gNB can take the UE’s capabilities into consideration when selecting the gap duration.”).
Duan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Winfried in view of Kumari with the tuning gap indication of Duan because tuning gap transmission ensures that the radar sensor is able to maintain phase continuity (see, e.g., Duan,. para. 0095).
Claim 27 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 11.
Claim 28 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 12.
Claims 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winfried in view of Kumari, further in view of MathWorks (MathWorks. (2021). “Range Doppler Response.” Accessed via Wayback Machine), and further in view of Uysal (WO 2020162751 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Winfried in view of Kumari teaches the method of claim 10. Winfried teaches detecting targets, but is silent as to how said targets are detected. Thus, Winfried in view of Kumari does not teach,
…detecting a target based on a first range-Doppler profile using the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component; and estimating one or more parameters associated with the target based on a second range-Doppler profile using the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component.
MathWorks teaches (note: what MathWorks does not teach is struck through),
(“The plot shows the stationary target at a range of approximately 7000 m.” See also the range-speed map reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MathWorks is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the targets of Winfried in view of Kumari using the range-Doppler processing of MathWorks because range-Doppler processing is a common technique in the art and has the benefit of enabling visualization of a signal to distinguish between targets (see MathWorks, p.1, section heading, “Benefits of Producing Range-Doppler Response”).
Uysal teaches,
…detecting a target based on a first range-Doppler profile using the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component (fig. 11, range-Doppler plot of detected targets using PC-FMCW waveform)…
Uysal is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the targets of Winfried in view of Kumari and further in view of Mathworks using the range-Doppler processing of the scrambled signal of Uysal because range-Doppler processing is a common technique in the art and has the benefit of enabling visualization of a signal to distinguish between targets (see MathWorks, p.1, section heading, “Benefits of Producing Range-Doppler Response”) while mitigating interference (see Uysal, p. 1, line 10).
Claim 30 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 17-20 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Winfried, Kumari, Uysal, Duan, and MathWorks are all close prior art to the claimed invention. Priotti (US 2010/0027608 A1) is also relevant prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Winfried teaches the method of claim 1. Winfried does not teach,
…the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a first symbol in a time domain, and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a second symbol in the time domain different from the first symbol.
Kumari, Uysal, Duan, and MathWorks all fail to correct for the deficiencies in Winfried.
Priotti teaches,
…the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a first symbol in a time domain (para. 0048, “Optionally, a training sequence (TS) generated in a TS generator block 20a can be inserted into the signal forwarded to the TX antenna(s) 100 alternated to the signal (4), with the purpose of frame and symbol synchronization and channel estimation. As schematically shown in FIG. 2, the training sequence from the TS generator block 20a can be inserted either upstream (dashed line) or downstream (chain line) of the time-domain scrambling block 20. Some of the subcarriers in formula (1) above could thus represent TS pilot signals.”), and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a second symbol in the time domain different from the first symbol (para. 0019. “A particularly preferred embodiment of the arrangement described herein is based on the concept of time-scrambling the OFDM signal transmitted after IFFT processing and GI (Guard Interval) insertion, while de-scrambling the OFDM signal received precedes GI removal and FFT processing. Scrambling/de-scrambling is typically achieved by time-wise multiplication with a scrambling sequence, having a pseudo-random statistical distribution and constant modulus. Optionally, unscrambled pilot symbols (e.g. in the form of a Training Sequence, TS), can be present at regular intervals inside the signal structure.”).
However, Priotti is not analogous to the claimed invention because the signals of Priotti are for use in cellular communication, not for use in radar sensing. Specifically, the unscrambled pilot signals of Priotti are used to help a receiving device descramble the scrambled signal, not used as a reference signal for sensing operations. Thus, incorporating the OFDM signal transmission of Priotti into the invention of Winfried would not be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to claim 3, 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 3.
Claim 4 is allowable because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Winfried teaches the method of claim 1. Winfried does not teach,
…wherein: the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a first portion of a symbol in a time domain, and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a second portion of the symbol in the time domain different from the first portion.
Kumari, Uysal, Duan, and MathWorks all fail to correct for the deficiencies in Winfried.
Priotti teaches,
…the at least one unscrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a first portion of a symbol in a time domain (para. 0048, “Optionally, a training sequence (TS) generated in a TS generator block 20a can be inserted into the signal forwarded to the TX antenna(s) 100 alternated to the signal (4), with the purpose of frame and symbol synchronization and channel estimation. As schematically shown in FIG. 2, the training sequence from the TS generator block 20a can be inserted either upstream (dashed line) or downstream (chain line) of the time-domain scrambling block 20. Some of the subcarriers in formula (1) above could thus represent TS pilot signals.”), and the at least one scrambled continuous-wave waveform component of the hybrid continuous-wave radar signal is transmitted during a second portion of a symbol in the time domain different from the first symbol (para. 0019. “A particularly preferred embodiment of the arrangement described herein is based on the concept of time-scrambling the OFDM signal transmitted after IFFT processing and GI (Guard Interval) insertion, while de-scrambling the OFDM signal received precedes GI removal and FFT processing. Scrambling/de-scrambling is typically achieved by time-wise multiplication with a scrambling sequence, having a pseudo-random statistical distribution and constant modulus. Optionally, unscrambled pilot symbols (e.g. in the form of a Training Sequence, TS), can be present at regular intervals inside the signal structure.”).
However, Priotti is not analogous to the claimed invention because the signals of Priotti are for use in cellular communication, not for use in radar sensing. Specifically, the unscrambled pilot signals of Priotti are used to help a receiving device descramble the scrambled signal, not used as a reference signal for sensing operations. Thus, incorporating the OFDM signal transmission of Priotti into the invention of Winfried would not be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to claim 5, 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 5.
Claim 6 is allowable because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 5.
Claim 17 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18 is allowable because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 17.
Claim 19 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 20 is allowable because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 19.
Conclusion
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