Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 4-5, and 18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments. However, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 regarding double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All double patenting rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments.
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 of this title, 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 1-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20200300995 A1), hereinafter Wu, in view of Kishigami (JP 2020148754 A), hereinafter Kishigami.
Regarding claim 1, Wu, as shown below, discloses a radar system comprising the following limitations:
first radar circuitry having a plurality of first transmission antennas and a plurality of first reception antennas, the first radar circuitry, in operation, transmits a first transmission signal from the plurality of first transmission antennas (See at least Fig. 1, Item 10, [0017] “Each distributed radar device 10, 20 includes one or more transmitting antenna elements TX.sub.i and receiving antenna elements RX connected”); and
second radar circuitry arranged at a position separated from the first radar circuitry by a predetermined distance, and having a plurality of second transmission antennas and a plurality of second reception antennas, the second radar circuitry, in operation, transmits a second transmission signal from the plurality of second transmission antennas (See at least Figs. 1-2C, Item 20, [0017] “Each distributed radar device 10, 20 includes one or more transmitting antenna elements TX.sub.i and receiving antenna elements RX connected”, [0040] “FIG. 2A illustrates a distributed arrangement 200A of first and second radar devices 201, 202, each having three transmit antennas and three receiver antennas which are symmetrically positioned and distributed in relation to one another.”), wherein
the first radar circuitry, in operation, receives, by the plurality of first reception antennas, a first reflected wave in which the first transmission signal is reflected by a first object, and a fourth reflected wave in which the second transmission signal is reflected by a second object (See at least Fig. 1, [0020] “The radar signal transmitted by the transmitter antenna unit TX.sub.1,j, TX.sub.2,j may by reflected by an object, such as a vehicle 1. Part of the reflected radar signal (e.g., mono-static target returns) reaches receiver antenna units RX.sub.1,i at the first distributed radar device 10, and another part (e.g., bi-static target returns) reaches receiver antenna units RX.sub.2,j at the second distributed radar device 20.” Wu discloses receiving at any antenna any transmission signal. Further, Wu further discloses that a plurality of targets can be observed/resolved (shown as three targets), in at least figure 4 and [0072]-[0077]),
the second radar circuitry, in operation, receives, at the plurality of second reception antennas, a second reflected wave in which the second transmission signal is reflected by a third object, and a third reflected wave in which the first transmission signal is reflected by the second object, the second object being positioned between and spaced from the first and third objects (See at least Fig. 1, [0020] “The radar signal transmitted by the transmitter antenna unit TX.sub.1,j, TX.sub.2,j may by reflected by an object, such as a vehicle 1. Part of the reflected radar signal (e.g., mono-static target returns) reaches receiver antenna units RX.sub.1,i at the first distributed radar device 10, and another part (e.g., bi-static target returns) reaches receiver antenna units RX.sub.2,j at the second distributed radar device 20.” Wu discloses receiving at any antenna any transmission signal. Further, Wu further discloses that a plurality of targets can be observed/resolved (shown as three targets), in at least figure 4 and [0072]-[0077]), and
Wu does not explicitly disclose a first interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas of the first radar circuitry 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 of the second radar circuitry. However, Kishigami, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
a first interval of each Doppler shift amount applied to the first transmission signal transmitted from each of the plurality of first transmission antennas of the first radar circuitry 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 of the second radar circuitry (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.”)
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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wu and 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 the combination of Wu and 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 the combination of Wu and 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. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not 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 further 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])
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not disclose the first radar circuitry demultiplexes the first reflected wave corresponding to the first transmission signal and the fourth reflected wave corresponding to the second transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, performs first direction estimation based on the first reflected wave, and performs second direction estimation based on the fourth reflected wave, and the second radar circuitry demultiplexes the second reflected wave corresponding to the second transmission signal and the third reflected wave corresponding to the first transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, performs third direction estimation based on the second reflected wave, and performs fourth direction estimation based on the third reflected wave. However, Kishigami further discloses
the first radar circuitry demultiplexes the first reflected wave corresponding to the first transmission signal and the fourth reflected wave corresponding to the second transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, performs first direction estimation based on the first reflected wave, and performs second direction estimation based on the fourth reflected wave, and the second radar circuitry demultiplexes the second reflected wave corresponding to the second transmission signal and the third reflected wave corresponding to the first transmission signal based on the first interval and the second interval, performs third direction estimation based on the second reflected wave, and performs fourth direction estimation based on the third reflected wave ([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 remedies the deficiencies of Wu by performing demultiplexing and direction estimation on each signal, as disclosed by Wu).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not disclose the first radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, the fourth reflected wave, and performs direction estimation processing using the first reflected wave, and the second radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, the third reflected wave, and performs direction estimation processing using the second reflected wave. However, Kishigami further discloses
the first radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, the fourth reflected wave, and performs direction estimation processing using the first reflected wave, and the second radar circuitry removes, based on the first interval and the second interval, the third reflected wave, and performs direction estimation processing using the second reflected wave (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. Kishigami remedies the deficiencies of Wu by performing removing signal processing on each signal, as disclosed by Wu)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not 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 further 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])
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not 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 further 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”)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu further 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 Fig. 1, [0017] “chirp generator 112, 132 is connected to receive a separate and independent local oscillator (LO) signal generator 110, 130 […] In addition, a common chirp start trigger signal may be shared amongst the chirp generators 112, 132”)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Wu further discloses
the control circuitry is included in one of the first radar circuitry and the second radar circuitry (See at least the depicted radar system 100 may be implemented in integrated circuit form with the distributed radar devices 10, 20 and the radar controller processor 30 formed with separate integrated circuits (chips) or with a single chip”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not 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 further 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]. Kishigami discloses all transmitters as having different transmission timing)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not disclose at least one of the first interval and the second interval is variably set. However, Kishigami further 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”)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 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. Wu does not 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 further 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])
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu does not 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 further 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”)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing system disclosed by Kishigami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect targets with high accuracy (See at least [0008] “providing a radar device that can detect targets with high accuracy”).
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 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.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Kishigami, in further view of Alalusi (US 20240085519 A1), hereinafter Alalusi.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wu and 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”).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing 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 Wu, in view of Kishigami, in further view of Nagpal (US 20220268916 A1), hereinafter Nagpal.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wu and 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”).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing 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 Wu, in view of Kishigami, in further view of Vollbracht (US 20220146666 A1), hereinafter Vollbracht.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wu and 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”).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing 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 Wu, in view of Kishigami, in further view of Hasegawa (US 20220276367 A1), hereinafter Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wu and Kishigami, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Wu and 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”).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal efficiency. 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 Wu with the radar processing 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights