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
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 26, and 29 have been amended. No New Matter was noticed.
Objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 10-, filed 06/17/, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 10-, filed 06/17/, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jungmaier et al. (’825) in view of Manica et al. (’749), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0233076 A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 21–30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Scherz et al. (US 2024/0402324 A1) is maintained.
Applicant’s argument states that the reasoning presented for claims 1 and 11 applies to claims 21 and 27. In response to applicant’s argument that the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence recited in claims 21 and 27 must be applied in the manner set forth in amended claims 1 and 11, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the range-domain scrambling code modulates each of a plurality of parts within each FMCW waveform with a respective phase) are not recited in claims 21 or 27. Claim 21 recites: “… a two-dimensional (2D) scrambled frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal encoded with a range-domain scrambling code and a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence …”. Claim 27 recites the corresponding apparatus limitation. Neither claim places any limitation on the way either code is applied relative to the structure of the waveform. Neither claim recites parts within a waveform, and neither recites a respective phase per part. It is further noted that applicant amended claims 1 and 11 to add this limitation, and that the same limitation was not added to claims 21 or 27. Claims 26 and 29 were amended, but only to expand the acronym “PC-FMCW” at first occurrence.
Although the claims are interpreted considering the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant relies on [0115-0116] of the specification, which describe an embodiment in which an FMCW signal is partitioned into “L” parts, each modulated with a different phase. That description does not define “range-domain scrambling code” so as to exclude a code applied on a per-chirp basis, and the specification contains no express definition or disclaimer to that effect. Applicant’s argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with claims 21 and 27. See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the cited combination teaches the recited limitations. Jungmaier’s phase code is applied to the chirps from which range is determined by range FFT ([0025]: “The range component of an identified target may be determined, for example, using range FFT”), and reads on the claimed range-domain scrambling code ([0030], [0031]). Scherz’s scrambling phase code sequence is applied across the chirp sequence of a frame in the slow-time dimension from which Doppler is determined ([0004]: “A second FFT across the range transformed samples, also commonly referred to as Doppler FFT, yields speed information”), and reads on the claimed Doppler-domain scrambling sequence ([0010]: “The scrambling phase code sequence may include (pseudo-) random scrambling phase code values or a (pseudo-) random order of scrambling phase code values”).
Applicant argues that Scherz applies only one scrambling phase value per chirp. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scherz [0011] states: “In some implementations, the scrambling phase code sequence may include M·P phase values, where M is an integer larger than or equal to 1. If M>1, then each chirp has associated therewith more than one (M) scrambling phase code value.” Scherz therefore contemplates a configuration in which more than one scrambling phase value is associated with each chirp, in addition to the per-chirp unique phase code sequence assigned to each transmit channel ([0009]). Applicant’s characterization of Scherz as permitting only a one-to-one, value-per-chirp mapping does not account for this disclosure. This passage was of record in the prior action. It is noted here in response to applicant’s characterization of the reference and does not change the ground of rejection, which remains Jungmaier in view of Scherz as previously set forth.
Applicant’s traversal of the finding that receiving a capability report from a sensing device was known in the art is acknowledged. In response, documentary evidence supporting that finding is provided below. This evidence is provided solely to support the prior finding regarding receipt of a capability report from a sensing device and is not relied upon for any other teaching. No other limitation of any claim is supported by either reference.
Song et al., “Sensor Network based on IEEE 1451.0 and IEEE p1451.2-RS232,” I²MTC 2008 - IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Victoria, Vancouver Island, Canada, May 12-15, 2008. Song was published approximately sixteen years before the effective filing date and qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Song describes a configuring processor that obtains a sensor module’s stored capability description over a serial interface before operating the module. Song at section I states that “The NCAP controls a TIM by means of a digital interface, and that The TEDS contains the meta-data for smart transducers such as transducer identification, measurement range, location, calibration, user information, and more.” The exchange is a request and reply. Song at section III.B.1 states that “A TIM may generate a reply to a command under either of two circumstances. The first circumstance is when the command itself requires a reply, for example, the Query TEDS command.” The example at section V.A.2 reports the module’s supported operating parameters: “The IEEE p1451.2-RS232 physical type has default parameters setup such as baud (9600), data bits (8), parity (0), stop bit (1), and terminator (0-CR/LF).” Song separately describes reading transducer measurement data at section V.B, confirming that the reported content is the device’s supported settings rather than sensed values.
Qu et al. (US 2025/0087080 A1) claims priority to PCT/CN2023/118345, filed September 12, 2023 and published as WO 2025/054825 A1, which describes the subject matter relied upon. Qu [0078] states: “in the communication BM procedure, a UE reports capability of the number of fine Rx beams to inform a gNB of how many resources are allocated for P3. For sensing, the receiver may report similar capability to inform the transmitter, so as to support the scenarios or sensing stages in which the UE needs to sweep fine Rx beams.”
Song implements capability reporting under the IEEE 1451 family of standards, the earliest member of which, IEEE 1451.2, issued in 1997. Qu describes the same practice applied to sensing configuration as of 2023. The evidence establishes that reporting a sensing device’s supported parameters to a configuring device was known in the art well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain a report of supported parameters from the radar unit before configuring it. Jungmaier’s configuring processor selects code length, code type, application path, and per-frame code assignment for the particular radar it programs ([0043]: “one or more of: the length of the code, the type of code (e.g., Barker code), the path of application (either transmitter or receiver paths), whether to apply the same code to all frames”). One of ordinary skill selecting among device-dependent options would have had reason to determine which options the attached device supports, and Song teaches obtaining that information, including operating ranges and supported interface parameters, before commanding the device. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier establishes a bidirectional digital interface between the sensing device and the configuring processor ([0023]: “millimeter-wave radar 102 communicates with processor 104 using communication interface 110. Communication interface no may be, for example, of the serial peripheral interface (SPI), inter-integrated circuit (I2C), or universal asynchronous receiver-transmitter (UART) type)”, and Song implements the capability reporting exchange over the same class of serial interfaces, including SPI and UART (section III.A). Jungmaier’s processor already receives data from the radar over this interface ([0046]: “During step 306, the external user (e.g., processor 104) receives data from millimeter-wave radar 102”). The modification adds a message type to an existing transport and does not require a new communication path.
Applicant argues that claims 22-26 and 28-30 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claims 21 and 27. Because the rejection of claims 21 and 27 is maintained for the reasons set forth above, the rejections of claims 22-26 and 28-30 are likewise maintained for the reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jungmaier et al. (’825) in view of Manica et al. (’749) teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: A method for performing an object sensing operation by a sensing device, the method comprising: ([0020]: millimeter-wave radar 102 transmits a plurality of radiation pulses 106, such as chirps (e.g., linear chirps), towards scene 108. The transmitted radiation pulses 106 are reflected by objects in scene 108).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Manica et al. (’749) teaches: determining a range-domain scrambling code; ([0035]: the coder 11 multiplies 14 the synthesizer output (the ‘chirp’) with a phase code 15. The phase code has the same duration as the chirp and should be selected to have good auto-correlation properties, e.g. a Kasami code).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the intra-chirp phase code of Manica et al. (’749) within the programmable phase code block of Jungmaier et al. (’825). One would have been motivated to do so because Jungmaier expressly identifies interference mitigation as an objective of its programmable phase coding ([0041]: the programmable/configurable FSM may be used for the millimeter-wave radar to autonomously mitigate interference by using phase modulation according to a pre-programmed code), and Manica teaches that phase coding achieves that objective through signal spreading ([0031]: Phase coding performs a spreading of the transmitted signal and a received signal can only be reconstructed using the proper phase code. Uncoded or differently coded signals at the receiver will appear as noise). Both references are directed to phase-coded FMCW radar addressing the same interference problem; the motivation therefore arises from the references themselves and not from Applicant’s disclosure. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier’s phase code block 204 is a programmable LFSR clocked by FSM 202 and applied through transmitter phase mixer 210 ([0036]: FSM 202 controls the LFSR to change the phase for each chirp according to the programmed polynomial (i.e., clocks the LFSR)), and Manica applies its code at the same point in the FMCW transmit chain, by multiplying the synthesizer output before the local-oscillator mixer ([0035]).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: determining a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence; and ([0036]: an external user (e.g., processor 104) programs a polynomial into the LFSR using, e.g., SPI 228. After programming, FSM 202 controls the LFSR to change the phase for each chirp according to the programmed polynomial (i.e., clocks the LFSR)). A linear-feedback shift register clocked once per chirp produces a pseudo-random sequence of phase values across chirps, which is a scrambling sequence in the slow-time (Doppler) dimension.
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: performing the object sensing operation, the object sensing operation comprising at least one of transmitting or receiving a two-dimensional (2D) scrambled frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal encoded with the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, ([0030]: A phase shift is introduced to at least some of the chirps in the frame based on a code). This element recites an “at least one of … or” alternative; only one alternative need be taught. The Examiner relies upon the transmitting alternative; the receiving alternative need not be addressed.
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: wherein the 2D scrambled FMCW signal comprises a plurality of FMCW waveforms, ([0030]: Each transmitted frame includes, e.g., 2n chirps, where n may be, for example, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or higher).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Manica et al. (’749) teaches: wherein the range-domain scrambling code modulates each of a plurality of parts within each FMCW waveform of the plurality of FMCW waveforms with a respective phase, ([0037]: a phase coded waveform divides the chirp into a number Lc of time segments or code parts of duration Tcode, where Lc defines the length of the code; [0038]: where Φn = Φ(n) ∈[0, 2π]; n = 1, …,Lc is the code phase sequence and Tcode the time duration of an element of the sequence. For a binary-code, Φn = {0, π} so the code sequence can assume only the values 1 and -1, which cause changes in the phase of the signal every Tcode time). Manica’s Lc time segments are a plurality of parts within a single chirp, and each such part receives its own phase value Φn, with the phase changing every Tcode.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide each chirp of Jungmaier’s frame into Lc code parts each modulated with a respective phase, as taught by Manica et al. (’749). One would have been motivated to do so because Jungmaier’s per-chirp binary code is limited in length to the number of chirps in a frame, whereas Manica teaches that partitioning the chirp into Tcode intervals yields codes with good auto-correlation properties ([0035]), directly serving Jungmaier’s stated interest in applying longer Barker codes when lower side lobes are desired ([0040]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Manica demonstrates that the resulting intra-chirp coded waveform is successfully decoded by multiplication with the complex conjugate of the code ([0048]: multiplying the code by its complex conjugate restores the original signal), and because increasing the clocking rate of Jungmaier’s existing phase mixer to sub-chirp intervals requires no change in architecture.
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: and wherein the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence applies a respective phase to each FMCW waveform of the plurality of FMCW waveforms ([0031]: FSM 202 controls which phase is applied to each chirp by controlling phase code block 204).
Regarding Claim 2, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: wherein the 2D scrambled FMCW signal is modulated with the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence over each time period of a set of time periods, ([0035]: In some embodiments, FSM 202 applies the same phase code to each frame. In other embodiments, FSM 202 applies a different phase code to each frame (e.g., as pre-programmed by an external user)).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: and wherein determining at least one of the range-domain scrambling code or the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence comprises receiving a configuration message containing the at least one of the range-domain scrambling code or the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence ([0043]: an external user, such as processor 104, programs FSM 202 according to a desired phase code. The external user may program (e.g., using configuration commands via, e.g., SPI 228), for example, one or more of: the length of the code, the type of code (e.g., Barker code)). Only one alternative of the “at least one of … or” clause need be taught; the Examiner relies upon the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence alternative.
Regarding Claim 3, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claims 1 and 2, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: performing the object sensing operation based at least in part on receiving the 2D scrambled FMCW signal and using the at least one of the range-domain scrambling code or the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence to demodulate the received 2D scrambled FMCW signal ([0046]: During step 306, the external user (e.g., processor 104) receives data from millimeter-wave radar 102. During step 308, the external user demodulates the received data (based on the phase code used by FSM 202)). The Examiner relies upon the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence alternative.
Regarding Claim 4, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claims 1, 2, and 3, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: wherein the object sensing operation is a multi-static object sensing operation performed by using a plurality of transmitters and/or a plurality of receivers ([0029]: Embodiments that have a plurality of transmitting antennas 214 may have a corresponding plurality of amplifiers 212. Embodiments that have a plurality of receiving 216 may have a corresponding plurality of amplifiers 218, and a corresponding plurality of mixers 220). This element recites an “and/or” alternative; the Examiner relies upon a plurality of receivers. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim supplies its own definition of the recited multi-static operation as one “performed by using a plurality of transmitters and/or a plurality of receivers,” and Jungmaier’s plurality of receiving antennas with corresponding amplifiers and mixers satisfies that definition.
Regarding Claim 5, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: generating the 2D scrambled FMCW signal by encoding an FMCW signal with the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence; and ([0032]: After the external user programming, FSM 202 runs autonomously, applying the respective phase shift (based on the programmed code) to the corresponding chirp in the frame (either on the transmitter or receiver paths)).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal ([0044]: FSM 202 then starts PLL 206 for transmission of the first chirp. The first chirp may be subjected to a phase shift based on the output of phase code block 204).
Regarding Claim 6, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Manica et al. (’749) teaches: wherein determining the range-domain scrambling code comprises determining a sequence of phase-modulated signaling bits, ([0038]: For a binary-code, Φn = {0, π} so the code sequence can assume only the values 1 and -1, which cause changes in the phase of the signal every Tcode time).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to implement the range-domain code as the binary phase-code sequence of Manica et al. (’749), for the reasons given under Claim 1, and further because Jungmaier already employs a two-state phase alphabet ([0030]: a chirp may have a phase shift of 180° (inverted signal) or 0° (no phase shift)), so Manica’s binary alphabet is directly compatible with Jungmaier’s existing phase mixer. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the two references use the identical phase alphabet, differing only in the interval over which each state is held.
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Manica et al. (’749) teaches: wherein determining the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence comprises selecting a numerical sequence that is uniquely associated with a sensing device, ([0031]: phase-coded FMCW (PC-FMCW) systems were developed, adding a coder 11 and decoder 12 to the typical FMCW architecture to allow radars to identify their own signals; [0056]: phase coding could be implemented by airlines or groups of aircraft being allocated their own specific and reserved code set).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to assign the phase code of the combined system uniquely to each radar unit, as taught by Manica et al. (’749). One would have been motivated to do so because Jungmaier programs its code on a per-device basis through the external user interface ([0043]) without specifying device-unique assignment, while Manica teaches that device-unique code allocation is what permits each radar to identify its own returns and reject those of neighboring radars ([0031]) - the same interference-mitigation objective Jungmaier articulates at [0041]. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier’s FSM is programmed per unit via SPI 228 ([0038]: SPI 228 is used for programming FSM 202), so assigning a distinct polynomial to each unit occurs entirely within the existing programming interface.
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: and wherein performing the object sensing operation comprises: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal encoded with the sequence of phase-modulated signaling bits and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, wherein the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence is based on the numerical sequence ([0036]: FSM 202 controls the LFSR to change the phase for each chirp according to the programmed polynomial).
Regarding Claim 7, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal; ([0044]: FSM 202 then starts PLL 206 for transmission of the first chirp).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: receiving an echo signal in response to transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal; and ([0020]: The reflected radiation pulses (not shown in FIG. 1), which are also referred to as the echo signal, are detected by millimeter-wave radar 102).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: sensing a target object based on evaluating the echo signal ([0020]: processed by processor 104 to, for example, detect location, Doppler velocity, and other characteristics of objects in scene 108).
Regarding Claims 11–17, they are apparatus claims whose bodies recite substantively identical functional elements to method Claims 1–7 respectively, differing only in the preamble and in the recitation of structure performing the recited functions. They are grouped on that basis. The structural elements are addressed here; the functional limitations are rejected for the reasons set forth under Claims 1–7.
Regarding Claim 11, Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: An apparatus for performing an object sensing operation, the apparatus comprising: a transceiver; ([0028]: Millimeter-wave radar 102 includes FSM 202, phase code block 204, phase-locked loop (PLL) 206, switch 208, mixers 210, 220, and 222, amplifiers 212 and 218, transmitting antenna(s) 214, receiving antenna(s) 216).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: a memory; and ([0032]: the code is programmed into FSM 202 by an external user (e.g., by processor 104) using a memory (e.g., registers, or non-volatile memory) associated with FSM 202).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory, the one or more processors configured to: ([0024]: Processor 104 may be implemented as a general purpose processor, controller or digital signal processor (DSP) that includes, for example, combinatorial circuits coupled to a memory).
For the same reasons discussed under Claim 1, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to configure the processors accordingly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is substantially the same as claim 2 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 2 is applied.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is substantially the same as claim 3 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 3 is applied.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is substantially the same as claim 4 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 4 is applied.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is substantially the same as claim 5 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 5 is applied.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is substantially the same as claim 6 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 6 is applied.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is substantially the same as claim 7 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Manica et al. (US 2023/0296749 A1) , and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0233076 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jungmaier et al. (’825) in view of Manica et al. (’749) and further in view of Chen et al. (’076) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: transmitting a phase-coded frequency modulated continuous wave (PC-FMCW) signal; ([0018]: a millimeter-wave radar uses phase code modulation on top of FMCW to improve angular resolution. The phase spread is injected by a finite state machine (FSM) inside the millimeter-wave radar).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: receiving a first echo signal in response to transmitting the PC-FMCW signal; ([0029]: The corresponding echo is received via receiving antenna(s) 216, amplified with amplifier 218, mixed into intermediate frequency IF using mixer 220).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Chen et al. (’076) teaches: detecting one or more signal artifacts along with the first echo signal; and ([0061]: the reflected signal may leak into the cross-correlation window of the next antenna to appear as a phantom target at a closer range than the actual reflector; the 250 m target is not detected at its actual range but appears as a phantom target at 10 m (as indicated by the spike 1102)).
Jungmaier et al. (’825) does not explicitly teach, but Chen et al. (’076) teaches: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal based at least in part on detecting the one or more signal artifacts ([0062]: In some examples, to mitigate against the generation of phantom targets in this manner, a slow time phase coding scheme is applied to scramble each chirp within each chirp cycle of a full circular chirp cycle radar frame).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to detect phantom-target artifacts in the received response and to transmit the scrambled waveform in response, as taught by Chen et al. (’076). One would have been motivated to do so because Jungmaier already provides for changing the applied phase spread in response to observed conditions ([0040]: By dynamically changing the phase spreads (e.g., based on changes in the environment), an external user may optimize performance) but supplies no criterion for when to do so, while Chen supplies both the specific environmental trigger - a phantom target arising from a reflector beyond maximum range - and the corresponding corrective waveform. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Chen implements its correction as a per-chirp initial phase rotation ([0062]: a random (or quasi-random) initial phase rotator (e.g., a scrambling code) is applied to each transmitted chirp), functionally the same operation Jungmaier’s phase code block 204 and mixer 210 already perform, and because Jungmaier’s FSM is reprogrammable in operation via SPI 228 ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 9, Jungmaier et al. (’825) in view of Manica et al. (’749) and further in view of Chen et al. (’076) teaches the method according to Claims 1 and 8, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: wherein transmitting the PC-FMCW signal comprises transmitting the PC-FMCW signal in a first repetitive transmitting sequence, and wherein transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal comprises transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal in a second repetitive transmitting sequence that does not overlap the first repetitive transmitting sequence ([0035]: in some embodiments, FSM 202 applies a pre-programmed phase code to the first frame in a group of eight frames, and does not apply a phase code to the sub-sequent seven frames). The coded frame and the uncoded frames occupy mutually exclusive, non-overlapping positions within each repeating group of eight.
Regarding Claim 10, Jungmaier et al. (’825) in view of Manica et al. (’749) and further in view of Chen et al. (’076) teaches the method according to Claims 1 and 8, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (’825) teaches: wherein transmitting the PC-FMCW signal comprises transmitting the PC-FMCW signal in a first repetitive transmitting sequence, and wherein transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal comprises transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal in a second repetitive transmitting sequence that is interspersed with the first repetitive transmitting sequence ([0034]: in an embodiment in which there are 32 chirps per frame, FSM 202 may apply a Barker code of length 7 to 7 of the 32 chirps in the frame. The other 25 chirps in the frame may have no phase shift applied to).
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is substantially the same as claim 8 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 8 is applied.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is substantially the same as claim 9 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 9 is applied.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is substantially the same as claim 10 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 10 is applied.
Claims 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungmaier et al. (US 2020/0132825 A1) in view of Scherz et al. (US 2024/0402324 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: A method for performing an object sensing operation by a configuring device, the method comprising (teaches an external processor 104 that configures and controls the radar sensing device, i.e., a configuring device performing operations to enable the radar’s object sensing. ([0023-0024]; [0043].)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach receiving a capability report from a sensing device, however Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach receiving a capability report either. However, Scherz et al. teaches a MIMO radar apparatus with a control circuit and memory that stores configuration parameters including the unique phase code sequences and scrambling phase code sequence, and teaches a flexible MMIC sequencer allowing free programming of complex chirp/ramp programs. ([0017]; [0081].) Jungmaier et al. teaches a bidirectional communication interface between the processor (configuring device) and the radar (sensing device) via SPI. ([0023]; [0038].) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuring device would need to know the sensing device’s capabilities-such as its supported phase codes, waveform parameters, and programmable features-before configuring it for 2D scrambled FMCW operation. Receiving a capability report is a routine and obvious design step in any configuration protocol where the configuring device must tailor parameters to the sensing device’s capabilities, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art of radar system design and communications. The technical benefit is ensuring that the parameters sent to the sensing device are compatible with its capabilities. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier et al. already teaches the bidirectional SPI communication infrastructure for such an exchange.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches that processor 104 determines the phase code (range-domain scrambling code) to be programmed into the radar FSM. ([0043].) determining information to be provided to the sensing device for performing the object sensing operation by use of a two-dimensional (2D) scrambled frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal encoded with a range-domain scrambling code and a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence.
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach the configuring device also determining a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence to be provided. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the control circuit determining the scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) and the unique phase modulation vectors to be applied in the radar system. ([0067-0079].) The combination teaches the configuring device determining the full set of information-including both the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence-to be provided to the sensing device for 2D scrambled FMCW operation. For the same reasons discussed under Claim 1, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
transmitting the information to the sensing device: Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches processor 104 transmitting configuration commands to the radar FSM via communication interface 110. ([0043]; [0023].)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach transmitting information that also includes the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence. However, as discussed above, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the scrambling phase code sequence is a defined programmable parameter ([0017], [0081]) that must be communicated to the sensing device. In the combination, the configuring device transmits the determined information-including both the range-domain and Doppler-domain parameters-to the sensing device using the communication interface taught by Jungmaier et al. For the same reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 22, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 21, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: the information transmitted to the sensing device comprises information associated with the range-domain scrambling code, information associated with the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, and information associated with a wideband FMCW signal: (teaches that the configuration information includes the phase code (range-domain scrambling code). ([0043].)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach that the transmitted information also includes a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence or wideband FMCW signal parameters. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence (scrambling phase code sequence) is a defined programmable parameter of the radar that must be communicated to the sensing device ([0017], [0081]), and teaches that the FMCW radar system uses wideband FMCW pulses. ([0049]: “The use of wideband pulses, such as FMCW pulses, provides discrimination of targets in both distance and velocity.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration information transmitted to the sensing device must include parameters for all aspects of the 2D scrambled FMCW operation-the range-domain code, the Doppler-domain sequence, and the wideband FMCW waveform parameters-because the sensing device must know all three to correctly generate and process the waveform. The technical benefit is enabling fully coordinated 2D scrambled FMCW operation between the configuring and sensing devices. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Scherz et al. and Jungmaier et al. together teach both the parameters and the communication infrastructure.
Regarding Claim 23, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claims 21 and 22, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence being based on a numerical sequence, as Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach a separate Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence is based on a numerical sequence, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches this element. The scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) consists of a sequence of numerical phase values distributed across the chirps. ([0077]: “The example random scrambling phase code sequence [216.5625°, 165.9375°, 14.0625°, 53.4375°, 168.75°, 272.8125°, …] depicted in FIG. 9A also comprises P phase values. The P phase values of the scrambling phase code sequence may be randomly distributed in the range from 0° to 360°.”) For the same reasons discussed under Claim 21, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 24, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claims 21, 22, and 23, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the numerical sequence of the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence being uniquely associated with a particular sensing device, the numerical sequence is uniquely associated with the sensing device, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that each transmit channel (sensing device) is assigned a unique numerical phase code sequence. ([0067]: “the control circuit 620 … may be configured to assign, to each Tx channel 612-1, 612-2, …, a unique sequence of phases applied to the respective sequence of FMCW chirps of the respective Tx channel.”) For the same reasons discussed under Claims 6 and 21, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a device-unique numerical sequence as the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 25, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 21, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: the information transmitted to the sensing device comprises information associated with a sense signal transmission sequence (teaches that the configuration information programmed to FSM 202 includes parameters defining the transmission sequence-such as the length of the code, the type of code, path of application, and whether to apply the code to all frames. ([0043].)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach transmitting information defining a full sense signal transmission sequence that encompasses both a PC-FMCW component and a 2D scrambled FMCW component. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the complete phase modulation scheme-including the phase modulation vectors for each transmit channel and the scrambling phase code sequence-constitutes a defined transmission sequence that is stored and applied by the radar apparatus. ([0017]; [0067-0080].) In the combination, the information transmitted from the configuring device to the sensing device includes all parameters defining the sense signal transmission sequence. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the full transmission sequence information in the configuration message transmitted to the sensing device, because the sensing device requires complete sequence parameters to operate the 2D scrambled FMCW sensing correctly. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier et al. already teaches the communication of transmission sequence parameters via its configuration interface.
Regarding Claim 26, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claims 21 and 25, and further teaches:
the sense signal transmission sequence comprises a phase-coded frequency modulated continuous wave (PC-FMCW) signal having a first repetitive sequence and a 2D scrambled FMCW signal having a second repetitive transmitting sequence that one of a) overlaps the first repetitive sequence or b) is interspersed with the first repetitive sequence: Note that the claim presents an “or” statement presenting alternatives (a) and (b); only one alternative need be shown. Alternative (b)-interspersed sequences-is best supported by the references.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach a transmission sequence definition encompassing both a PC-FMCW first repetitive sequence and a 2D scrambled FMCW second repetitive sequence interspersed therewith. However, as discussed under Claim 10, Jungmaier et al. teaches interspersing phase-coded and non-coded frames within a transmission sequence ([0035]), and Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches alternating different scrambling sequences in successive frames ([0018]). The combination teaches a transmission sequence that interspersed a PC-FMCW first repetitive sequence with a 2D scrambled FMCW second repetitive sequence, and the information defining this structure is communicated from the configuring device to the sensing device as discussed under Claim 25. For the same reasons discussed under Claims 10 and 21, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 27, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches:
An apparatus for performing an object sensing operation, the apparatus comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory: For the same reasons discussed under Claim 11, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches a radar apparatus comprising a transceiver, memory, and processors communicatively coupled therewith. In the context of Claim 27, the configuring device apparatus is the external processor 104 and its associated communication hardware taught by Jungmaier et al. ([0023-0024].)
the one or more processors configured to receive a capability report from a sensing device via the transceiver: As discussed under Claim 21, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach receiving a capability report from the sensing device, and Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach this element either. However, for the same reasons discussed under Claim 21, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that receiving a capability report is an obvious and routine step in any configuration protocol where the configuring device must tailor parameters to the sensing device’s capabilities. Jungmaier et al. teaches the bidirectional SPI communication interface through which such a report would be received. ([0023]; [0038].) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate capability reporting into the configuring apparatus processors, with a reasonable expectation of success.
determine information to be provided to the sensing device for performing the object sensing operation by use of a two-dimensional (2D) scrambled frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal encoded with a range-domain scrambling code and a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence: As discussed under Claim 21, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the processors determining Doppler-domain scrambling sequence information to provide to the sensing device. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches determining the scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) and phase modulation parameters to be applied. ([0067-0079].) The combination teaches the configuring apparatus processors determining the full 2D scrambled FMCW parameters to be provided. For the same reasons discussed under Claim 21, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
transmit the information to the sensing device via the transceiver: As discussed under Claim 21, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach transmitting Doppler-domain scrambling sequence information to the sensing device. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the scrambling phase code sequence is a programmable parameter that must be communicated to the sensing device. ([0017]; [0081].) In the combination, the configuring apparatus transmits the full configuration information via the communication interface taught by Jungmaier et al. For the same reasons discussed under Claim 21, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 28, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the apparatus according to Claim 27, and further teaches:
the information transmitted to the sensing device comprises information associated with a sense signal transmission sequence: As discussed under Claim 25, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the processors transmitting information defining a complete sense signal transmission sequence encompassing both PC-FMCW and 2D scrambled FMCW components. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the complete phase modulation scheme and scrambling sequence constitute a defined transmission sequence communicated to the apparatus. ([0017]; [0067-0080].) For the same reasons discussed under Claim 25, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 29, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the apparatus according to Claims 27 and 28, and further teaches:
the sense signal transmission sequence comprises a phase-coded frequency modulated continuous wave (PC-FMCW) signal having a first repetitive sequence and a 2D scrambled FMCW signal having a second repetitive transmitting sequence that one of a) overlaps the first repetitive sequence or b) is interspersed with the first repetitive sequence: As discussed under Claim 26, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the processors transmitting a sense signal transmission sequence definition that encompasses both a PC-FMCW first repetitive sequence and a 2D scrambled FMCW second repetitive sequence that overlaps or is interspersed therewith. However, the combination of Jungmaier et al. ([0035]) and Scherz et al. ([0018]) teaches the processors of the configuring apparatus being configured to transmit such a transmission sequence definition to the sensing device, as discussed under Claims 10 and 26. For the same reasons discussed under those claims, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 30, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the apparatus according to Claim 27, and further teaches:
the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence is based on a numerical sequence that is uniquely associated with the sensing device: As discussed under Claims 6 and 24, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence being based on a numerical sequence uniquely associated with the sensing device. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches assigning a unique numerical phase code sequence to each transmit channel/sensing device. ([0067].) For the same reasons discussed under Claim 24, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
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).
The grounds of rejection applied to claims 21-30 is unchanged. Song et al. and Qu et al. have been added only as directly corresponding evidence supporting the prior finding regarding receipt of a capability report from a sensing device, following applicant’s traversal. No other teaching of either reference is relied upon, and no new ground of rejection is introduced as to these claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights