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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 and 11/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 (reference application) (US 20250216538 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, The reference application discloses
A radar apparatus, comprising: first radar circuitry, which, in operation, transmits a first transmission signal from a plurality of first transmission antennas; and second radar circuitry, which, in operation, transmits a second transmission signal from a plurality of second transmission antennas, wherein a first interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas is different from a second interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the second transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Claim 8 “8. The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal from a plurality of first transmission antennas, the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal from a plurality of second transmission antennas, and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the first transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of first transmission antennas and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the second transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of second transmission antennas are different from each other.”).
Regarding claim 18, The reference application discloses
A transmission method for transmitting a radar signal, comprising: applying a Doppler shift amount of a first interval to each first transmission signal, applying a Doppler shift amount of a second interval to each second transmission signal, transmitting the first transmission signals to which the Doppler shift amount of the first interval is applied, from a plurality of first transmission antennas, respectively, and transmitting the second transmission signals to which the Doppler shift amount of the second interval is applied, from a plurality of second transmission antennas, respectively, wherein the first interval is different from the second interval (See at least Claim 8 “8. The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal from a plurality of first transmission antennas, the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal from a plurality of second transmission antennas, and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the first transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of first transmission antennas and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the second transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of second transmission antennas are different from each other.” The Examiner notes that the instant method is obvious by the apparatus of the reference application).
Regarding claim 2, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer.
a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer (The Examiner notes that while “a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer” is not explicitly disclosed by the reference application, the reference application does discloses that the first and second intervals are not equal with at least claim 8 “plurality of first transmission antennas and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the second transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of second transmission antennas are different from each other.”. Therefore, the reference application differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention explicitly discloses an integer that is not a ratio. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reference application so that a ratio different from an integer was used with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP 2144.04. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Because the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Claims 3-12, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 in view of Kishigami (JP 2020148754 A), hereinafter Kishigami. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 3, The reference application as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal and the Doppler shift amount applied to the second transmission signal are different from each other. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal and the Doppler shift amount applied to the second transmission signal are different from each other (See at least Fig. 7 [0062] “The Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt apply different Doppler shift amounts DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signals input thereto” The Examiner notes that each doppler shift unit corresponds to a plurality of first/second transmission antennas. See also [0065])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the doppler shift system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 4, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry demultiplex, from a reception signal, a first reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal and a second reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, and perform first direction estimation based on the first reflected wave signal and second direction estimation based on the second reflected wave signal, respectively. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry demultiplex, from a reception signal, a first reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal and a second reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, and perform first direction estimation based on the first reflected wave signal and second direction estimation based on the second reflected wave signal, respectively (See at least [0059] “The Doppler multiplexing separation unit 211 separates the transmission signals transmitted from each transmitting antenna 105 (in other words, the reflected wave signals for the transmission signals) from the Doppler multiplexed signals (hereinafter referred to as Doppler multiplexed signals) using the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 […] Furthermore, the Doppler demultiplexing unit 211 outputs the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 to the direction estimation unit 212” See also [0042], [0376])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the demultiplex system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 5, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose one radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from an other radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, and performs direction estimation processing using a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from the one radar circuitry. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
one radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from an other radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, and performs direction estimation processing using a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from the one radar circuitry (See at least [0059] “The Doppler multiplexing separation unit 211 separates the transmission signals transmitted from each transmitting antenna 105 (in other words, the reflected wave signals for the transmission signals) from the Doppler multiplexed signals (hereinafter referred to as Doppler multiplexed signals) using the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 […] Furthermore, the Doppler demultiplexing unit 211 outputs the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 to the direction estimation unit 212” See also [0042], [0376]. Kishigami discloses a ‘separation’ process, equivalent to a removal process.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the filtering system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 6, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the first transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas, and the second radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the second transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of second transmission antennas. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the first transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas (See at least [0308] “The transmission switching control unit 501 generates a time division multiplexing index TM_INDEX that instructs switching of the transmitting antenna 105” See also [0309]-[0312]), and
the second radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the second transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least [0308] “The transmission switching control unit 501 generates a time division multiplexing index TM_INDEX that instructs switching of the transmitting antenna 105” See also [0309]-[0312])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the multiplexing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 7, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts (See at least Fig. 9, Items 301-302, [0298] “by using both Doppler multiplexing and code multiplexing, in addition to the same effects as in the first embodiment, it is possible to increase the number of signals that can be multiplexed and transmitted simultaneously”, [0299] “code generation unit 301 may generate N_NER885 orthogonal code sequences Code_NER886 of orthogonal code length L_NER884, and each orthogonal code multiplication unit 302”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the multiplexing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 8, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose control circuitry, which, in operation, outputs a reference signal to the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, wherein each of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry generates a chirp signal using the reference signal. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
control circuitry, which, in operation, outputs a reference signal to the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, wherein each of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry generates a chirp signal using the reference signal (See at least [0038] “The VCO 103 outputs a frequency-modulated signal (hereinafter referred to as a frequency chirp signal or chirp signal, for example) to the Doppler shifters 104-1 to 104-Nt”, [0039] “The Doppler shift unit 104 applies a phase rotation φ<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signal input from the VCO 103 in order to impart a Doppler shift amount DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signal, and outputs the signal after the Doppler shift to the transmitting antenna 105”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the chirp system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 9, The combination of the reference application and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the control circuitry is included in one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry. Kishigami additionally discloses
the control circuitry is included in one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry (See at least [0038] “The VCO 103 outputs a frequency-modulated signal (hereinafter referred to as a frequency chirp signal or chirp signal, for example) to the Doppler shifters 104-1 to 104-Nt” The Examiner interprets the VCO (control circuitry) as included in at least one of the first or second radar circuitries)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the control system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 10, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a transmission timing of the first transmission signal for the first radar circuitry is different from a transmission timing of the second transmission signal for the second radar circuitry. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a transmission timing of the first transmission signal for the first radar circuitry is different from a transmission timing of the second transmission signal for the second radar circuitry (See at least [0305] “a configuration is described in which the Doppler multiplexing configuration described in embodiment 1 is further combined with time division multiplexing” See also [0351])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the timing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 11, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first interval and the second interval is variably set. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first interval and the second interval is variably set (See at least [0185] “radar device 10 can variably set the intervals of the Doppler shift amounts”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the interval system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 12, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry switch a multiplexing transmission method between a first multiplexing transmission based on the Doppler shift amount and a second multiplexing transmission different from the first multiplexing transmission. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry switch a multiplexing transmission method between a first multiplexing transmission based on the Doppler shift amount and a second multiplexing transmission different from the first multiplexing transmission (See at least [0312] “The ndm-th transmission switching unit 502 switches the output of the ndm-th Doppler shift unit 104 to the {(ndm-1)×N<sub>TM</sub>+TM_INDEX}-th transmitting antenna 105 and outputs it in accordance with the instruction of the time division multiplexing” See also [0305]-[0311])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the multiplexing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 15, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first interval and the second interval is set to one of intervals obtained by unequally dividing a Doppler frequency range to be subjected to Doppler analysis. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first interval and the second interval is set to one of intervals obtained by unequally dividing a Doppler frequency range to be subjected to Doppler analysis (See at least [0419] “each interval of the Doppler shift amounts is set to an interval obtained by dividing a Doppler frequency range that is the subject of Doppler analysis into unequal intervals”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the frequency system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”)
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 in view of Alalusi (US 20240085519 A1), hereinafter Alalusi. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 13, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in a same housing. However, Alalusi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in a same housing (See at least Fig. 2, [0074] “the front end 200 and the back end 202 may be relatively close to each other (e.g., within a few centimeters or meters) and/or contained in the same housing”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the housing system disclosed by Alalusi. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to locate the circuitries in a same housing for at least the advantage of efficient assembly.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 in view of Nagpal (US 20220268916 A1), hereinafter Nagpal. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 14, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in different housings. However, Nagpal, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in different housings (See at least [0114] “one or more transmitter antennas and one or more receiver antennas in separate housings, enables placement of such antennas at different locations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the housing system disclosed by Nagpal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0114] “location diversity allows a greater field of view to be covered and an increase in accuracy with which objects 104 are detected”).
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 in view of Vollbracht (US 20220146666 A1), hereinafter Vollbracht. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a same polarized wave is used for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas. However, Vollbracht, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a same polarized wave is used for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least [0018] “the radar circuit may create the same transmit polarization at all transmit antennas”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the polarization system disclosed by Vollbracht. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously facilitate systems to mitigate interference (See at least [0005] “mitigate interference of multiple automotive radar devices”).
Claims 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/975,865 in view of Hasegawa (US 20220276367 A1), hereinafter Hasegawa. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 17, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose polarized waves orthogonal to each other are used respectively for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas. However, Hasegawa, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
polarized waves orthogonal to each other are used respectively for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 1, [0033] “transmission polarization of the second and the fourth radar waves to be transmitted from the radar devices of the radar group B is orthogonal to transmission polarization of the third and the fifth radar waves to be transmitted from the radar devices of the radar group C”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by the reference application with the orthogonal polarization system disclosed by Hasegawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously prevent interference between radar devices (See at least [0014] “It is therefore possible to obtain an appropriate detection result while preventing occurrence of radio wave interference between three or more radar devices”).
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishigami (JP 2020148754 A), hereinafter Kishigami.
Regarding claim 1, Kishigami discloses a radar apparatus, comprising (See at least [0189] “FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a radar transmitter 100a”):
first radar circuitry (See at least [0189] “FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a radar transmitter 100a”), which, in operation, transmits a first transmission signal (See at least [0192] “radar transmission signals transmitted from, for example, the transmitting antennas 105 in a sub-array configuration” See also [0132]) from a plurality of first transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 7, [0192] “In FIG. 7, a sub-array using N<sub>SA</sub> transmitting antennas 105 is configured for the output of each Doppler shift unit 104 .”); and
second radar circuitry (See at least [0189] “FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a radar transmitter 100a”), which, in operation, transmits a second transmission signal (See at least [0192] “radar transmission signals transmitted from, for example, the transmitting antennas 105 in a sub-array configuration”) from a plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 7, [0192] “In FIG. 7, a sub-array using N<sub>SA</sub> transmitting antennas 105 is configured for the output of each Doppler shift unit 104 .”), wherein
a first interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas is different from a second interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the second transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 7 [0062] “The Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt apply different Doppler shift amounts DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signals input thereto. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the intervals (Doppler shift intervals) of the Doppler shift amounts DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> between the Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt (in other words, between the transmitting antennas 105-1 to 105-Nt) are not equal intervals, and at least one Doppler interval is different.”)
Regarding claim 3, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
the Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal and the Doppler shift amount applied to the second transmission signal are different from each other (See at least Fig. 7 [0062] “The Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt apply different Doppler shift amounts DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signals input thereto” The Examiner notes that each doppler shift unit corresponds to a plurality of first/second transmission antennas. See also [0065])
Regarding claim 4, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry demultiplex, from a reception signal, a first reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal and a second reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, and perform first direction estimation based on the first reflected wave signal and second direction estimation based on the second reflected wave signal, respectively (See at least [0059] “The Doppler multiplexing separation unit 211 separates the transmission signals transmitted from each transmitting antenna 105 (in other words, the reflected wave signals for the transmission signals) from the Doppler multiplexed signals (hereinafter referred to as Doppler multiplexed signals) using the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 […] Furthermore, the Doppler demultiplexing unit 211 outputs the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 to the direction estimation unit 212” See also [0042], [0376])
Regarding claim 5, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
one radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from an other radar circuitry of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, and performs direction estimation processing using a reflected wave signal corresponding to a transmission signal transmitted from the one radar circuitry (See at least [0059] “The Doppler multiplexing separation unit 211 separates the transmission signals transmitted from each transmitting antenna 105 (in other words, the reflected wave signals for the transmission signals) from the Doppler multiplexed signals (hereinafter referred to as Doppler multiplexed signals) using the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 […] Furthermore, the Doppler demultiplexing unit 211 outputs the outputs from each Doppler analysis unit 209 to the direction estimation unit 212” See also [0042], [0376]. Kishigami discloses a ‘separation’ process, equivalent to a removal process.)
Regarding claim 6, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
the first radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the first transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas (See at least [0308] “The transmission switching control unit 501 generates a time division multiplexing index TM_INDEX that instructs switching of the transmitting antenna 105” See also [0309]-[0312]), and
the second radar circuitry performs time-division transmission of the second transmission signal to which the Doppler shift amount being a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least [0308] “The transmission switching control unit 501 generates a time division multiplexing index TM_INDEX that instructs switching of the transmitting antenna 105” See also [0309]-[0312])
Regarding claim 7, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal using code multiplexing for each of the Doppler shift amounts (See at least Fig. 9, Items 301-302, [0298] “by using both Doppler multiplexing and code multiplexing, in addition to the same effects as in the first embodiment, it is possible to increase the number of signals that can be multiplexed and transmitted simultaneously”, [0299] “code generation unit 301 may generate N_NER885 orthogonal code sequences Code_NER886 of orthogonal code length L_NER884, and each orthogonal code multiplication unit 302”)
Regarding claim 8, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
control circuitry, which, in operation, outputs a reference signal to the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry, wherein each of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry generates a chirp signal using the reference signal (See at least [0038] “The VCO 103 outputs a frequency-modulated signal (hereinafter referred to as a frequency chirp signal or chirp signal, for example) to the Doppler shifters 104-1 to 104-Nt”, [0039] “The Doppler shift unit 104 applies a phase rotation φ<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signal input from the VCO 103 in order to impart a Doppler shift amount DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> to the chirp signal, and outputs the signal after the Doppler shift to the transmitting antenna 105”)
Regarding claim 9, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Kishigami additionally discloses
the control circuitry is included in one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry (See at least [0038] “The VCO 103 outputs a frequency-modulated signal (hereinafter referred to as a frequency chirp signal or chirp signal, for example) to the Doppler shifters 104-1 to 104-Nt” The Examiner interprets the VCO (control circuitry) as included in at least one of the first or second radar circuitries)
Regarding claim 10, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
a transmission timing of the first transmission signal for the first radar circuitry is different from a transmission timing of the second transmission signal for the second radar circuitry (See at least [0305] “a configuration is described in which the Doppler multiplexing configuration described in embodiment 1 is further combined with time division multiplexing” See also [0351])
Regarding claim 11, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
at least one of the first interval and the second interval is variably set (See at least [0185] “radar device 10 can variably set the intervals of the Doppler shift amounts”)
Regarding claim 12, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry switch a multiplexing transmission method between a first multiplexing transmission based on the Doppler shift amount and a second multiplexing transmission different from the first multiplexing transmission (See at least [0312] “The ndm-th transmission switching unit 502 switches the output of the ndm-th Doppler shift unit 104 to the {(ndm-1)×N<sub>TM</sub>+TM_INDEX}-th transmitting antenna 105 and outputs it in accordance with the instruction of the time division multiplexing” See also [0305]-[0311])
Regarding claim 15, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami additionally discloses
at least one of the first interval and the second interval is set to one of intervals obtained by unequally dividing a Doppler frequency range to be subjected to Doppler analysis (See at least [0419] “each interval of the Doppler shift amounts is set to an interval obtained by dividing a Doppler frequency range that is the subject of Doppler analysis into unequal intervals”)
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
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.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami.
Regarding claim 2, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer.
a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer (The Examiner notes that while “a ratio of a greater one of the first interval and the second interval to a smaller one of the first interval and the second interval is different from an integer” is not explicitly disclosed by Kishigami, Kishigami does discloses that the first and second intervals are not equal with at least Fig. 7, [0062] “Doppler shift amounts DOP<sub>ｎ</sub> between the Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt (in other words, between the transmitting antennas 105-1 to 105-Nt) are not equal intervals”. Therefore, Kishigami differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention explicitly discloses an integer that is not a ratio. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kishigami so that a ratio different from an integer was used with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP 2144.04. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Because the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami, in view of Alalusi (US 20240085519 A1), hereinafter Alalusi.
Regarding claim 13, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in a same housing. However, Alalusi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in a same housing (See at least Fig. 2, [0074] “the front end 200 and the back end 202 may be relatively close to each other (e.g., within a few centimeters or meters) and/or contained in the same housing”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Kishigami with the housing system disclosed by Alalusi. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to locate the circuitries in a same housing for at least the advantage of efficient assembly.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami, in view of Nagpal (US 20220268916 A1), hereinafter Nagpal.
Regarding claim 14, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in different housings. However, Nagpal, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry is configured such that radar transmission circuitry and radar reception circuitry are included in different housings (See at least [0114] “one or more transmitter antennas and one or more receiver antennas in separate housings, enables placement of such antennas at different locations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Kishigami with the housing system disclosed by Nagpal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0114] “location diversity allows a greater field of view to be covered and an increase in accuracy with which objects 104 are detected”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami, in view of Vollbracht (US 20220146666 A1), hereinafter Vollbracht.
Regarding claim 16, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami does not explicitly disclose a same polarized wave is used for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas. However, Vollbracht, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a same polarized wave is used for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least [0018] “the radar circuit may create the same transmit polarization at all transmit antennas”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Kishigami with the polarization system disclosed by Vollbracht. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously facilitate systems to mitigate interference (See at least [0005] “mitigate interference of multiple automotive radar devices”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami, in view of Hasegawa (US 20220276367 A1), hereinafter Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 17, Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kishigami does not explicitly disclose polarized waves orthogonal to each other are used respectively for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas. However, Hasegawa, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
polarized waves orthogonal to each other are used respectively for a polarized wave for the plurality of first transmission antennas and a polarized wave for the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 1, [0033] “transmission polarization of the second and the fourth radar waves to be transmitted from the radar devices of the radar group B is orthogonal to transmission polarization of the third and the fifth radar waves to be transmitted from the radar devices of the radar group C”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Kishigami with the orthogonal polarization system disclosed by Hasegawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously prevent interference between radar devices (See at least [0014] “It is therefore possible to obtain an appropriate detection result while preventing occurrence of radio wave interference between three or more radar devices”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 20230129203 A1) - A multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar system, including: a plurality of transmit channels configured to sequentially transmit signals with transmit-channel-designated Doppler division multiplexing (DDM) modulations; and processing circuitry configured to: determine, for each of the transmit channels, an impulse response of phase modulation errors due to DDM coupling of the respective transmit channel from each of the other transmit channels; and generate, based on the impulse response, a reconstruction matrix of modulation DDM coupling factors.
Wu (US 20230095228 A1) - Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to radar and radar processing. As may be implemented in accordance with one or more embodiments involving multi-input multi-output (MIMO) co-prime radar signals transmitted by a plurality of transmitters and reflected from at least one target, the reflected radar signals are processed by resolving ambiguities associated with a range-Doppler detection based on unique pulse repetition frequencies (PRF)s associated with respective chirp groups of the reflected radar signals. Phase compensation is applied to compensate for motion-induced phased biases and, thereafter, Doppler estimates are reconstructed to provide a dealiased version of the reflected radar signals.
Wu (US 20220171049 A1) - A co-prime coded DDM MIMO radar system, apparatus, architecture, and method are provided with a reference signal generator (112) that produces a transmit reference signal; a plurality of DDM transmit modules (11) that produce, condition, and transmit a plurality of transmit signals over which each have a different co-prime encoded progressive phase offset from the transmit reference signal; a receiver module (12) that receives a target return signal reflected from the plurality of transmit signals by a target and generates a digital signal from the target return signal; and a radar control processing unit (20) configured to detect Doppler spectrum peaks in the digital signal, where the radar control processing unit comprises a Doppler disambiguation module (25) that is configured with a CPC decoder to associate each detected Doppler spectrum peak with a corresponding DDM transmit module, thereby generating a plurality of transmitter-associated Doppler spectrum peak detections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648