DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 28 March 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAVENSCOFT et al. US 2021/0208237 A1, and in view of Kellum et al. US 2018/0095161 A1.
As to claim 1, RAVENSCOFT discloses substantially the invention as claimed, including a signal transmission method, comprising:
obtaining, by a first communication device (Figure 1, a radar detection system 101 generating composite radar and communication waveforms accordance with aspects of the PE-THoRaCs approach based on a Frequency Modulation (FM) radar waveform and a communication signal, [7], [33]), priority information and waveform related configuration information, the priority information being used for indicating the priority of a communication performance constraint condition of a signal and/or the priority of a radar performance constraint condition of the signal (“[7] … In an aspect, the PE-THoRaCs approach may utilize a two stage process (e.g., = the instant claimed element of “prioritization of constraints”). During a first stage, a shaping process may be iteratively executed against the FM radar waveform and the communication signal until a first stop criterion (e.g., = the instant claimed element of “communication performance constraint condition”) is satisfied and as a result of the iterative execution of the first stage, an initial composite radar and communication waveform…. During a second stage of the two stage process, an enhancement process may be iteratively executed against the initial composite radar waveform and the communication signal until a second stop criterion is satisfied to produce a final composite radar and communication waveform having the communication signal embedded therein.”). The constraints to be optimized are disclosed in [37] that, “an autocorrelation property metric, an estimate Peak Sidelobe Level (PSL), an Integrated Sidelobe Level (ISL), or a Frequency Template Error (PSL), a sufficient change in the waveform”; whereas [39] discloses the second constraint that, “an autocorrelation property metric, an estimate PSL metric, and ISL metric, a predicted error rate metric”. The two-stage optimization inevitably indicates a prioritization of the metrics – the first metric is to be considered first (=prioritized) and then the second metric. It is noted that the two metrics referred to the generation of the composite radar and communication waveform, and
However, RAVENSCOFT does not explicitly disclose the claimed elements of “the waveform related configuration information being configuration information used for determining a value of a waveform parameter; determining, by the first communication device, a target value of the waveform parameter according to the priority information and the waveform related configuration information; and executing, by the first communication device, at least one of the following operations according to the target value: performing transmission of a signal whose waveform parameter is the target value, or sending the target value”.
Kellum discloses in Figures 2-4 and associated paragraphs that, “the waveform related configuration information being configuration information used for determining a value of a waveform parameter; determining, by the first communication device (Figure 3, a radar communication scheduler), a target value of the waveform parameter according to the priority information and the waveform related configuration information; and executing, by the first communication device, at least one of the following operations according to the target value: performing transmission of a signal whose waveform parameter is the target value, or sending the target value (“[33] FIG. 3 is a simplified block diagram of a radar communications scheduler, according to some embodiments of the disclosed invention. As shown, a communications manager 324 manages resources, manages the overall scenario timeline, and schedules communication modes to transmit and receive waveforms as appropriate based on the system's need. The communications manager 324 sends commands and data to a waveform manager 318 to execute a given communications mode request, such as what waveform to transmit, the duration of the transmission, the repeat rate of the transmission, and other timing and waveform parameters. The communications manager 324 also receives messages resulting from received communications; “[34] A radar manager 322 sends radar mode commands describing the desired waveform to be generated to a waveform manager 318, such as the number of coherent processing intervals or radar frames to run, the pulse repetition interval of the waveforms, the actual waveform to be generated, the frequency and other waveform and timeline parameters to generate the radar mode. The radar manager 322 also receives radar data including detection and track information from the radar mode. This information often appears as symbols on a screen or other user interface to signify where a target has been detected by the radar”; “[36] In some embodiments, the waveform manager selects rules (for example stored rules from a memory device) 306 and causes a scheduler 302 to schedule transmissions and allocate resources to a plurality of data packet queues (304a-304c) so that the radar and LTE communications become interleaved and do not collide”; “[45] In some embodiments, the individual mode managers include additional parameters in the waveform request, such as the range of PRI and pulse widths that are tolerable to the waveform manager, to help the waveform manager make a decision to modify or deny the request. Once requests are granted (as is or modified) or denied, the individual mode managers are notified and the waveform and mode data is sent on to the packet scheduler to schedule the low level packets. The individual mode managers then send their waveform data to the packet scheduler queues”. It appears that Kellum’s the packet scheduler 302 scheduling data according to a finalized waveform parameter, based on which transmitting a signal that the waveform parameter is the target value or transmitting the determined target value to other devices based on the scheduled.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the secure packet transmission art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified Kellum’s teachings of allocating spectrum for commercial protocols the radar-prioritized modes with the teachings of RAVENSCOFT’s, for the purpose of performing radar modes within commercial communication protocols more accurately and effectively (Kellum, [11]).
As to claim 2, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the obtaining, by the first communication device, priority information comprises: receiving, by the first communication device, priority information from a second communication device; or, obtaining, by the first communication device, performance requirement information, and determining the priority information according to the performance requirement information, the performance requirement information reflecting a requirement for communication performance or radar performance of the signal (Kellum’s [39] provides an example of performance requirement information based on which is established shown in Figure 4, block 402 for the purpose of performing radar modes within commercial communication protocols more accurately and effectively (Kellum, [11]).
As to claim 3, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the obtaining, by the first communication device, performance requirement information comprises: receiving, by the first communication device, performance requirement information from the second communication device (Kellum, the source of the requirement information or of waveform related configuration is a minor design choice (the device of Kellum may receive the information from a different entity)).
As to claim 4, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the determining, by the first communication device, the priority information according to the performance requirement information comprises: determining that the priority of the communication performance constraint condition is higher than the priority of the radar performance constraint condition in a case that the performance requirement information indicates that the performance requirement of the signal is that the communication performance is higher than the radar performance; or, determining that the priority of the radar performance constraint condition is higher than the priority of the communication performance constraint condition in a case that the performance requirement information indicates that the performance requirement of the signal is that the radar performance is higher than the communication performance (Kellum, Figure 4, block 404 and [40], [41] teach the decision of prioritizing the optimization of radar or communications based on their ranking. This decision is carried out based on “the waveform request “ = “the instant claimed element of “performance requirement information”)..
As to claim 5, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein in a case that the priority information indicates that the priority of the communication performance constraint condition is higher than the priority of the radar performance constraint condition, the communication performance constraint condition comprises at least one of the following conditions: a first constraint condition; a second constraint condition; a third constraint condition; or a fourth constraint condition; and the radar performance constraint condition comprises at least one of the following conditions: a fifth constraint condition; a sixth constraint condition; a seventh constraint condition; or an eighth constraint condition, wherein the first constraint condition is Tg ≥ Ꞇmax, wherein Tg represents an OFDM symbol guard interval, and Ꞇmax represents a maximum multipath time delay; the second constraint condition is Δf ≥ fmax, wherein Δf represents a subcarrier spacing, and fmax represents a maximum Doppler shift; the third constraint condition is Nc Δf ≤ B0, wherein Nc represents a number of subcarriers, and B0 represents a configured maximum bandwidth; the fourth constraint condition is Nsfr (Tg+1/Δf) ≤ D0, wherein Ns represents a number of OFDM symbols within a pulse, fr represents a pulse repetition frequency, and D0 represents a configured maximum duty cycle; the fifth constraint condition is c/2fr ≥ Ru0, wherein c represents a light velocity, and Ru0 represents a configured maximum unambiguous range; the sixth constraint condition is cfr / 2fc ≥ Vu0, wherein fc represents a carrier frequency, and Vu0 represents a configured maximum unambiguous velocity; the seventh constraint condition is c/2NcΔf ≤ ΔR0, wherein ΔR0 represents a configured minimum distinguishable range unit; and the eighth constraint condition is cNs /2 (Tg+1/Δf) ≤ Rbz0, wherein Rbz0 represents a configured blind range (Kellum, Figure 4, block 404 and [40] teach the comparison of priorities of radar vs. communication ; specifying that the comparison is done using the specific parameters in claim 5 does not change outcome of the comparison and does not provide a further technical effect).
As to claim 6, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the priority information indicates that the priorities of the constraint conditions are sequentially sorted from high to low as follows: the third constraint condition, the fourth constraint condition, the first constraint condition, the second constraint condition, the eighth constraint condition, the fifth constraint condition, the sixth constraint condition, and the seventh constraint condition (the multi-state optimizations are known in RAVENSCOFT’s [7]; the specific parameters recited in said claim 6 do not provide any further technical effect, as they refer to the order in which parameters are taken into account for optimization. If RAVENSCOFT’s teaches multi-stage optimizations in the context of Joint Radar and Communication (JRC) transmissions, the multi-stage optimizations would by applied to each branches 406 or 410 in Figure 4 of Kellum).
As to claim 7, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the determining, by the first communication device, a target value of the waveform parameter according to the priority information and the waveform related configuration information comprises: determining, by the first communication device, a candidate value (Kellum, the potential gap *duration“) of the waveform parameter according to the waveform related configuration information and the priority information indicating that the priority of the communication performance constraint condition is higher than the priority of the radar performance constraint condition, wherein the candidate value meets the communication performance constraint condition; determining, by the first communication device, the candidate value as the target value of the waveform parameter in a case that the candidate value completely or maximally meets the radar performance constraint condition; or, updating, by the first communication device, the candidate value in a case that the radar performance constraint condition comprises the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition and the candidate value does not meet the fifth constraint condition or the sixth constraint condition, until the candidate value meets the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition, and determining the candidate value meeting the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition as the target value of the waveform parameter (Kellum, [40]-[41] teach obtaining the frequency band(s) and maximizing “the potential gap (duration)” = the instant claimed element of “candidate value”) between the radar and communication signals).
As to claim 8, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein in a case that the radar performance is higher than the communication performance, the communication performance constraint condition comprises at least one of the following conditions: a first constraint condition; or a fourth constraint condition; and the radar performance constraint condition comprises at least one of the following conditions: a second constraint condition; a third constraint condition; a seventh constraint condition; or an eighth constraint condition, wherein the first constraint condition is Tg ≥ Ꞇmax, wherein Tg represents an OFDM symbol guard interval, and Ꞇmax represents a maximum multipath time delay; the second constraint condition is Δf ≥ fmax, wherein Δf represents a subcarrier spacing, and fmax represents a maximum Doppler shift; the third constraint condition is Nc Δf ≤ B0, wherein Nc represents a number of subcarriers, and B0 represents a configured maximum bandwidth; the fourth constraint condition is Nsfr (Tg+1/Δf) ≤ D0, wherein Ns represents a number of OFDM symbols within a pulse, fr represents a pulse repetition frequency, and D0 represents a configured maximum duty cycle; the seventh constraint condition is c/2NcΔf ≤ ΔR0, wherein ΔR0 represents a configured minimum distinguishable range unit; and the eighth constraint condition is cNs /2 (Tg+1/Δf) ≤ Rbz0, wherein Rbz0 represents a configured blind range (Kellum, Figure 4, block 404 and [40] teach the comparison of priorities of radar vs. communication ; specifying that the comparison is done using the specific parameters in claim 5 does not change the end result of the comparison and does not provide a further technical effect)..
As to claim 9, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the priority information indicates that the priorities of the constraint conditions are sequentially sorted from high to low as follows: the eighth constraint condition, the second constraint condition, the seventh constraint condition, the third constraint condition, the fourth constraint condition, and the first constraint condition (the multi-state optimizations are known in RAVENSCOFT’s [7]; the specific parameters recited in said claim 9 do not provide any further technical effect, as they refer to the order in which parameters are taken into account for optimization. If RAVENSCOFT’s teaches multi-stage optimizations in the context of Joint Radar and Communication (JRC) transmissions, the multi-stage optimizations would be applied to each branches 406 or 410 in Figure 4 of Kellum)..
As to claim 10, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the determining, by the first communication device, a target value of the waveform parameter according to the priority information and the waveform related configuration information comprises: determining, by the first communication device, a candidate value of the waveform parameter according to the waveform related configuration information and the priority information indicating that the priority of the radar performance constraint condition is higher than the priority of the communication performance constraint condition, wherein the candidate value meets the communication performance constraint condition (the multi-state optimizations are known in RAVENSCOFT’s [7]; the specific parameters recited in said claim 10 do not provide any further technical effect, as they refer to the order in which parameters are taken into account for optimization. If RAVENSCOFT’s teaches multi-stage optimizations in the context of Joint Radar and Communication (JRC) transmissions, the multi-stage optimizations would be applied to each branches 406 or 410 in Figure 4 of Kellum). and the radar performance constraint condition; judging, by the first communication device, whether the candidate value meets a fifth constraint condition and a sixth constraint condition; using, by the first communication device, the candidate value as the target value in a case that the candidate value meets the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition; or, updating, by the first communication device, the candidate value in a case that the candidate value does not meet the fifth constraint condition or the sixth constraint condition, until the candidate value meets the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition, and determining the candidate value meeting the fifth constraint condition and the sixth constraint condition as the target value of the waveform parameter, wherein the fifth constraint condition is c/2fr ≥ Ru0, wherein c represents a light velocity, and Ru0 represents a configured maximum unambiguous range; and the sixth constraint condition is cfr / 2fc ≥ Vu0, wherein fc represents a carrier frequency, and Vu0 represents a configured maximum unambiguous velocity;.
As to claim 11, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the updating, by the first communication device, the candidate value comprises: adjusting, by the first communication device, a subcarrier spacing setting parameter at least once to obtain at least two subcarrier spacings in total with the candidate value; determining, by the first communication device, at least two pulse repetition frequencies corresponding to the at least two subcarrier spacings; determining, by the first communication device, a maximum unambiguous range and a maximum unambiguous velocity of a staggered pulse repetition frequency according to the at least two pulse repetition frequencies; updating, by the first communication device, the candidate value based on the at least two subcarrier spacings in response to that the maximum unambiguous range of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is greater than or equal to Ru0 and the maximum unambiguous velocity of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is greater than or equal to Vu0; or, readjusting, by the first communication device, the subcarrier spacing setting parameter in response to that the maximum unambiguous range of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is less than Ru0 or the maximum unambiguous velocity of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is less than Vu0, until the maximum unambiguous range of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is greater than or equal to Ru0 and the maximum unambiguous velocity of the staggered pulse repetition frequency is greater than or equal to Vu0 (said claim 11 recites different obvious parameters of a radar signal that need to be adjusted /set based on the prioritization decision. Kellum’s figure 4 and [40]-[41] recite the frequency band as the parameter; however, it would be obvious to substitute this parameter with subcarrier spacing or radar specific parameters such as pulse frequency (Kellum, [39]).
As to claim 12, RAVENSCOFT-Kellum discloses, wherein the obtaining, by the first communication device, waveform related configuration information comprises: receiving, by the first communication device, waveform related configuration information from the second communication device (Kellum, the source of the requirement information or of waveform related configuration is a minor design choice (the device of Kellum may receive the information from a different entity)).; or, receiving, by the first communication device, performance requirement information from the second communication device, and obtaining the waveform related configuration information according to the performance requirement information and an association relationship, the association relationship being an association relationship between the performance requirement information and the waveform related configuration information; or, wherein the waveform related configuration information comprises at least one of the following information: a maximum bandwidth; a maximum duty cycle; a maximum multipath time delay; a maximum radial velocity of a communication receiver; the maximum unambiguous range; the maximum unambiguous velocity; a maximum radial velocity of a radar detection object; a minimum distinguishable range unit; a minimum distinguishable velocity unit; or a blind range; or, wherein the waveform parameter comprises at least one of the following parameters: an OFDM symbol guard interval, a subcarrier spacing, a number of subcarriers, a number of OFDM symbols within a pulse, or a pulse repetition frequency.
Claims 13-19 correspond to the device claims of the method claims 1-7; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale as in method claims 1-7 shown above.
Claim 20 corresponds to the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of the method claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as in the method claim 1 shown above.
The prior art cited in this Office action are: RAVENSCOFT et al. US 2021/0208237 A1, Kellum et al. US 2018/0095161 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00AM -3:30PM.
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, Kevin Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/HAI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649