DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8 recite “in particular”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of this limitation are and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 recite “and/or”. It is not clear what this limitation means and is therefore indefinite. Examiner further notes that “and/or” when used along with a list of items become confusing since it is not clear how the limitation should be separated and viewed. Claims 5, 12 recite “a particular signal processing system”. However it is not clear how “particular” further limits the signal processing system and therefore it is not clear the metes and bounds of this limitation and is therefore indefininte. Claim 5, 6 recite “the particular first”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6, 13 recite “predefineable time”. However it is not clear what is predefinable and what is not predefinable and is therefore indefininte. Claims 7, 13, 14 recite” the particular receive signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites “the particular receiver”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “the beginning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recite “the receivers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (US 2021/033122A1) in view of Chen (CN112578358A).
With respect to Claim 1 Hamberger teaches A test arrangement to test a surroundings sensor, the test arrangement comprising: a receptacle for the surroundings sensor, which is configured to emit a surroundings signal (See Fig 1 and Para[0035],[0036] During a test, the radar device under test 2 transmits a radar signal towards the radar target simulator front end 1); a first object simulator, which is configured to receive the surroundings signal as a first receive signal (See Fig 1 and Para[0035], Here, the radar target simulator front end 1 comprises a number of antenna units 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, arranged along a first angle under investigation x with regard to a radar device under test 2. Here, the antenna units 12-15 are shown using dotted lines, indicating that they constitute optional components. Each of the antenna units 10-15 is configured to be selectively activated and deactivated. In the activated state, the individual antenna unit 10-15 generates a radar reflection, while in the deactivated state, the antenna unit 10-15 does not generate a radar reflection.); a second object simulator, which is configured to receive the surroundings signal as a second receive signal (See Fig 1 and Para[0035]); a processor (See Para[0073][0074] The embodiments of the present invention can be implemented by hardware, software, or any combination thereof. Various embodiments of the present invention may be implemented by one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or the like.), However Hamberger is silent to the language of which is configured to ascertain a signal difference, in particular, a phase difference and/or a frequency difference, from the first and second receive signals, and to ascertain, as a function of the signal difference, a spatial relationship between the surroundings sensor, the first object simulator, and/or the second object simulator. Nevertheless Chen teaches which is configured to ascertain a signal difference, in particular, a phase difference and/or a frequency difference, from the first and second receive signals, and to ascertain, as a function of the signal difference, a spatial relationship between the surroundings sensor, the first object simulator, and/or the second object simulator. (See Para[0004] Radar angle measurement is mainly achieved through the phase difference between receiving antennas. Given the phase difference between receiving antennas, the angle of the target can be calculated.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and ascertain a difference such as that of Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because ascertaining a difference would lead to being able to simultaneously calibrate the phase error between antennas and the phase center distance. With respect to Claim 2 Hamberger is silent to the language of The test arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to ascertain a distance value or a difference in the radial distance to the surroundings sensor, as the spatial relationship between the first and second object simulators. Nevertheless Chen teaches wherein the processor is configured to ascertain a distance value or a difference in the radial distance to the surroundings sensor, as the spatial relationship between the first and second object simulators (See Para[0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and ascertain a distance value such as that of Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because ascertaining a distance value lead to being able to simultaneously calibrate the phase error between antennas and the phase center distance. With respect to Claim 5 Hamberger teaches The test arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first and second object simulators each include a receiver to receive the surroundings signal, the first and second receivers each including a particular signal processing system, which is designed to receive the particular first or second receive signal(See Fig 1 and Para[0035], Here, the radar target simulator front end 1 comprises a number of antenna units 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, arranged along a first angle under investigation x with regard to a radar device under test 2. Here, the antenna units 12-15 are shown using dotted lines, indicating that they constitute optional components. Each of the antenna units 10-15 is configured to be selectively activated and deactivated. In the activated state, the individual antenna unit 10-15 generates a radar reflection, while in the deactivated state, the antenna unit 10-15 does not generate a radar reflection.);. With respect to Claim 6 Hamberger teaches The test arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the particular signal processing system is designed to receive the particular first or second receive signal for a predefineable time (See Para[0006]). With respect to Claim 8 Hamberger teaches A method to test a surroundings sensor with the aid of a test arrangement, the method comprising: emitting a surroundings signal by the surroundings sensor(See Fig 1 and Para[0035],[0036] During a test, the radar device under test 2 transmits a radar signal towards the radar target simulator front end 1);; receiving the surroundings signal by a first object simulator(See Fig 1 and Para[0035], Here, the radar target simulator front end 1 comprises a number of antenna units 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, arranged along a first angle under investigation x with regard to a radar device under test 2. Here, the antenna units 12-15 are shown using dotted lines, indicating that they constitute optional components. Each of the antenna units 10-15 is configured to be selectively activated and deactivated. In the activated state, the individual antenna unit 10-15 generates a radar reflection, while in the deactivated state, the antenna unit 10-15 does not generate a radar reflection.);; receiving the surroundings signal by a second object simulator(See Fig 1 and Para[0035]); However Hamberger is silent to the language of ascertaining a signal difference, in particular a phase difference and/or a frequency difference, from the first and the second receive signals; and ascertaining a spatial relationship between the surroundings sensor, the first object simulator, and/or the second object simulator as a function of the signal difference. Nevertheless Chen teaches ascertaining a signal difference, in particular a phase difference and/or a frequency difference, from the first and the second receive signals; and ascertaining a spatial relationship between the surroundings sensor, the first object simulator, and/or the second object simulator as a function of the signal difference. (See Para[0004] Radar angle measurement is mainly achieved through the phase difference between receiving antennas. Given the phase difference between receiving antennas, the angle of the target can be calculated.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and ascertain a difference such as that of Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because ascertaining a difference would lead to being able to simultaneously calibrate the phase error between antennas and the phase center distance. With respect to Claim 9 Hamberger is silent to the language of The method according to claim 8, wherein a distance value or a difference in the radial distance to the surroundings sensor is ascertained as the spatial relationship between the first and second object simulators. Nevertheless Chen teaches wherein a distance value or a difference in the radial distance to the surroundings sensor is ascertained as the spatial relationship between the first and second object simulators. (See Para[0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and ascertain a distance value such as that of Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because ascertaining a distance value lead to being able to simultaneously calibrate the phase error between antennas and the phase center distance. With respect to Claim 12 Hamberger teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein the first and second object simulators each include a receiver to receive the surroundings signal, and wherein the first and second receive signals each being received by a particular signal processing system of the particular receiver. (See Fig 1 and Para[0035], Here, the radar target simulator front end 1 comprises a number of antenna units 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, arranged along a first angle under investigation x with regard to a radar device under test 2. Here, the antenna units 12-15 are shown using dotted lines, indicating that they constitute optional components. Each of the antenna units 10-15 is configured to be selectively activated and deactivated. In the activated state, the individual antenna unit 10-15 generates a radar reflection, while in the deactivated state, the antenna unit 10-15 does not generate a radar reflection.);. With respect to Claim 13 Hamberger teaches The method according to claim 12, wherein the particular receive signal is received for a predefineable time (See Para[0006]).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (US 2021/033122A1) in view of Chen (CN112578358A) as applied to claims 1, 8 respectively and further in view of Kenington (US2011/0287728 A1).
With respect to Claim 3 Hamberger is silent to the language of The test arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the processor includes a cross-correlation system for ascertaining the phase difference. Nevertheless Kenington teaches wherein the processor includes a cross-correlation system for ascertaining the phase difference (See Para[0052],[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger wherein the processor includes a cross-correlation system such as that of Kenington. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger, because such a cross-correlation system would makes apparent a relation between the original calibration signal and the transformed calibration signal, such as a phase difference, for each of the receive paths. With respect to Claim 10 Hamberger is silent to the language of The method according to claim 8, wherein the phase difference is ascertained with the aid of a cross-correlation system. Nevertheless Kenington teaches wherein the phase difference is ascertained with the aid of a cross-correlation system (See Para[0052],[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger wherein the processor includes a cross-correlation system such as that of Kenington. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger, because such a cross-correlation system would makes apparent a relation between the original calibration signal and the transformed calibration signal, such as a phase difference, for each of the receive paths.
Claim(s) 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (US 2021/033122A1) in view of Chen (CN112578358A) as applied to claims 1, 8 respectively and further in view of Mielke (US2023/0176198 A1). With respect to Claim 4 Hamberger is silent to the language of The test arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the processor uses a mixer for the first and second receive signals or signals derived therefrom in each case to ascertain the frequency difference. Nevertheless Mielke teaches wherein the processor uses a mixer for the first and second receive signals or signals derived therefrom in each case to ascertain the frequency difference (See Para0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger wherein the processor uses a mixer such as that of Mielke. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger, because a frequency difference between received light and LO light may be determined by mixing the received light with the LO light (e.g., by coupling the two beams onto a detector so they are coherently mixed together at the detector), and would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. With respect to Claim 11 Hamberger is silent to the language of The method according to claim 8, wherein the first and second receive signals or signals derived therefrom in each case are mixed with the aid of a mixer (M) for the purpose of ascertaining the frequency difference. Nevertheless Mielke teaches wherein the first and second receive signals or signals derived therefrom in each case are mixed with the aid of a mixer (M) for the purpose of ascertaining the frequency difference. (See Para0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger wherein the processor uses a mixer such as that of Mielke. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger, because a frequency difference between received light and LO light may be determined by mixing the received light with the LO light (e.g., by coupling the two beams onto a detector so they are coherently mixed together at the detector), and would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (US 2021/033122A1) in view of Chen (CN112578358A) as applied to claims 5, 12 respectively and further in view of Rosu (US2024/0111020 A1).
With respect to Claim 7 Hamberger is silent to the language of The test arrangement according to claim 5, wherein one of the receivers includes a trigger circuit, which starts and/or stops the reception of the first and second receive signals as a function of the particular receive signal. Nevertheless Rosu teaches wherein one of the receivers includes a trigger circuit, which starts and/or stops the reception of the first and second receive signals as a function of the particular receive signal (See Para[0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and include a trigger circuit such as that of Rosu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because a trigger circuit can generated and transmitted to multiple transmitters, usually following a pre-defined transmission schedule, and thus improve efficiency. With respect to Claim 14 Hamberger is silent to the language of The method according to claim 12, wherein the beginning and/or end of the reception of the first and second receive signals is/are triggered by one of the receivers as a function of the particular receive signal. Nevertheless Rosu teaches wherein the beginning and/or end of the reception of the first and second receive signals is/are triggered by one of the receivers as a function of the particular receive signal. (See Para[0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hamberger and include a trigger circuit such as that of Rosu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Hamberger because a trigger circuit can generated and transmitted to multiple transmitters, usually following a pre-defined transmission schedule, and thus improve efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
