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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 11 use the abbreviation “FMCW” (frequency modulated continuous wave), PC-FMCW (phase-coded FMCW), and “2D” without first spelling out the terms in full.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: PC-FMCW is not defined in the claim. The examiner assumes PC is the acronym for phase-coded.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 21-30 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 1, 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 sensing device, the method comprising: Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches a method of operating a radar (sensing device) for detecting objects in a scene, i.e., performing an object sensing operation. ([0019]: “Millimeter-wave radars may be used, for example, to detect moving or static objects in a field of view.”)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: determining a range-domain scrambling code (determining and applying a phase code to each FMCW chirp using FSM 202 and phase code block 204. In an FMCW radar, each chirp encodes range information via its frequency sweep; a code applied per chirp therefore constitutes a range-domain scrambling code. [0031]: “FSM 202 controls which phase is applied to each chirp by controlling phase code block 204.”; [0033]: “FSM 202 may be programmed by an arbitrary code.”)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach: determining a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence as a distinct sequence varying across the slow-time (inter-chirp/Doppler) dimension. Jungmaier et al. applies a single phase code per chirp within a frame without distinguishing a separate Doppler-domain scrambling sequence from the range-domain code. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches this element. Scherz et al. teaches a scrambling phase code sequence applied across successive FMCW chirps in the slow-time (Doppler) domain—a sequence of phase values applied chirp-to-chirp that is superimposed on the DDM phase modulation vectors of the transmit channels. ([0010]: “The scrambling phase code sequence denotes a sequence of phase values that may be superimposed with the first and second unique or transmit-channel-specific phase code sequences of the phase modulation scheme.”; [0073]: “The scrambling phase code sequence may comprise (pseudo-) random scrambling phase code values or a (pseudo-) random order of scrambling phase code values.”) This inter-chirp scrambling sequence directly constitutes a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the phase-coded FMCW radar of Jungmaier et al. with the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence of Scherz et al. Both references are directed to the same technical field of phase-coded FMCW radar and are concerned with mitigating interference and spur artifacts. Scherz et al. expressly explains that applying a scrambling phase code sequence across chirps spreads spur energy along the Doppler/velocity dimension, reducing spurs caused by phase modulator inaccuracy. ([0086]: “If a random phase sequence is added to the DDM modulation on all transmitters, the energy components of the spurs can be spread.”) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the Doppler-domain scrambling of Scherz et al. to the Jungmaier et al. system to achieve this spur-suppression benefit. The motivation arises from the references themselves and not from hindsight derived from the claims. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both systems use programmable phase-shift control circuits applied to FMCW chirps, making the addition of a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence a routine extension of known techniques.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach: 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, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches combining a DDM phase modulation scheme with a common scrambling phase code sequence applied per chirp in the slow-time/Doppler dimension, resulting in a signal encoded in two dimensions. ([0072]: “the first unique phase code sequence (first phase modulation vector) of the first Tx channel (Tx1) may be combined with the scrambling phase code sequence … The combination … results in a modified DDM scheme which will also be referred to as scrambled DDM scheme.”) In the combination of Jungmaier et al. and Scherz et al., the resulting FMCW signal is encoded with a range-domain scrambling code (per-chirp phase shift, Jungmaier et al.) and a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence (inter-chirp scrambling, Scherz et al.), yielding the claimed 2D scrambled FMCW signal. For the same reasons stated above regarding motivation, this combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach: 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: Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches transmitting frames of chirps repeatedly, with the phase code applied per chirp in each frame. ([0035]: “In some embodiments, FSM 202 applies the same phase code to each frame.”) Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach additionally applying a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence over each time period of a set of time periods. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches applying the scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) to the FMCW chirps consistently across successive time intervals (frames). ([0016]: “the control circuit is configured to apply the scrambling phase code sequence to both the first and to the second sequence of FMCW radar chirps in a first time interval … [and] to apply the same scrambling phase code sequence to the first and to the second sequence of FMCW radar chirps in a subsequent second time interval.”) The combination therefore teaches that the 2D scrambled FMCW signal is modulated with both codes over each time period of a set of time periods. 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.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: 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 (teaches that processor 104 programs FSM 202 with the phase code (range-domain scrambling code) via a communication interface, which constitutes transmitting a configuration message to the sensing device containing the range-domain scrambling code. [0043]: “an external user, such as processor 104, programs FSM 202 according to a desired phase code.”; [0023]: “millimeter-wave radar 102 communicates with processor 104 using communication interface 110.”) Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach that the configuration message also contains a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence.
Although not necessary for teaching on this claim based on one of “or” statements being already taught, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches that the scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) is a defined parameter of the radar system that is stored in a memory circuit and applied by the control circuit. ([0017]: “the radar apparatus further includes a memory circuit configured to store the first and the second unique phase code sequence and/or the scrambling phase code sequence.”; [0081]: “In order to use the proposed concept, a radar MMIC may have flexible control of the phase modulator/PLL. For example, the MMIC may have a flexible sequencer that allows free programming of complex chirp/ramp programs.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the scrambling phase code sequence, being a programmable parameter of the radar, would be communicated to the sensing device as part of the configuration message alongside the range-domain code already taught by Jungmaier et al. The technical motivation is that both codes must be known to the sensing device to generate and demodulate the 2D scrambled FMCW signal correctly. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Jungmaier et al. already teaches the configuration communication infrastructure and Scherz et al. teaches the Doppler-domain parameter to be communicated.
Regarding Claim 3, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) 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: (teaches receiving echo chirps and demodulating them based on the phase code used for transmission. [0046]: “the external user demodulates the received data (based on the phase code used by FSM 202).”)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach using a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence to demodulate the received signal. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches this element. Scherz et al. teaches that the received signal must be demodulated (descrambled) using the scrambling phase code sequence (Doppler-domain scrambling sequence) for each receiver channel. ([0083]: “The received signal has to be demodulated by the random phase sequence for each receiver channel. … the receiver circuit 630 of the radar apparatus is configured to perform a demodulation (descrambling) based on a receive signal and the scrambling phase code sequence.”) The combination therefore teaches performing the object sensing operation by receiving the 2D scrambled FMCW signal and using the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence to demodulate it. 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claims 1, 2, and 3, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: the object sensing operation is a multi-static object sensing operation performed by using a plurality of transmitters and/or a plurality of receivers: Note that the claim presents an “and/or” statement; only one alternative need be shown. Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches that a MIMO configuration with multiple chipsets may be used for coherent and non-coherent signal processing, and that embodiments may include a plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas. ([0004]: “A multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) configuration with multiple chipsets can be used to perform coherent and non-coherent signal processing as well.”; [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.”)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach a multi-static sensing operation in the context of a 2D scrambled FMCW signal. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches a MIMO radar apparatus employing multiple simultaneous transmit channels (Tx1–Tx4) and multiple receive channels (Rx1–Rx4), which constitutes a multi-static object sensing configuration. ([0061]: “Transmitter circuit 610 comprises a plurality of Tx channels 612-1, 612-2, 612-3.”; [0065]: “Radar apparatus 600 may optionally additionally comprise a receiver circuit 630 for receiving reflections of the transmitted FMCW radar signals. Receiver circuit 630 comprises at least one Rx channel 632.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the 2D scrambled FMCW sensing operation in the multi-static MIMO configuration of Scherz et al., because the very purpose of the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence in Scherz et al. is to enable separation of signals from multiple simultaneously-transmitting channels in a multi-static MIMO configuration. The technical benefit is improved transmitter separation and angular resolution. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Scherz et al. demonstrates a working multi-static MIMO FMCW radar system using the same scrambled FMCW waveform taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 5, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) 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: (teaches generating a set of FMCW chirps and encoding them with a phase code (range-domain scrambling code) using FSM 202 and phase code block 204. [0030]: “A phase shift is introduced to at least some of the chirps in the frame based on a code.”)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach additionally encoding the FMCW signal with a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence to produce a 2D scrambled FMCW signal. However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches encoding FMCW radar chirps with the Doppler-domain scrambling phase code sequence by combining (adding) the scrambling phase code sequence value to each chirp’s phase alongside the DDM phase modulation vector. ([0078]: “The p-th phase value of the phase modulation vector for the first Tx channel may be combined with the p-th phase value of the scrambling phase code sequence to obtain an p-th combined phase for the first Tx channel.”) In the combination, the FMCW signal is encoded with both the range-domain scrambling code (Jungmaier et al., [0030]) and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence (Scherz et al., [0078]), generating the 2D scrambled FMCW signal. 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.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal (teaches transmitting the phase-coded FMCW chirps via the transmitting antenna(s). [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.”) As discussed above, the combination with Scherz et al. produces the 2D scrambled FMCW signal that is transmitted.
Regarding Claim 6, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: determining the range-domain scrambling code comprises determining a sequence of phase-modulated signaling bits: (teaches determining a phase code comprising discrete binary phase values applied to each chirp—e.g., a Barker code of +1/−1 values corresponding to 0°/180° phase shifts—which constitutes a sequence of phase-modulated signaling bits. [0033]: “A Barker code of length 7 (i.e., +1; +1; +1; -1; -1; +1; -1) applies a corresponding phase shift (i.e., 0°; 0°; 0°; 180°; 180°; 0°; 180°) to 7 of the 8 chirps in the frame.”)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach: determining the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence comprises selecting a numerical sequence that is uniquely associated with a sensing device, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches this element. Scherz et al. teaches that each transmit channel (sensing device) is assigned a unique phase code sequence—a numerical sequence of phase values uniquely associated with that transmit channel. ([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.”) This unique phase code sequence per transmit channel is a numerical sequence uniquely associated with each sensing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to assign a device-unique numerical sequence as the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence, as Scherz et al. teaches this is the mechanism by which multiple MIMO sensing devices are distinguished at the receiver. The technical benefit is enabling transmitter separation. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Scherz et al. demonstrates this approach in a working system.
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: As discussed under Claims 1 and 5, the combination of Jungmaier et al. and Scherz et al. teaches transmitting the FMCW signal encoded with both the range-domain phase-modulated signaling bits (Jungmaier et al., [0033]) and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence based on the unique numerical sequence (Scherz et al., [0067], [0077]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1, and further teaches:
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches the Doppler-domain encoding (discussed under Claim 1), and the combination teaches transmitting the resulting 2D scrambled FMCW signal. 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.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: receiving an echo signal in response to transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal (teaches receiving echo signals corresponding to the transmitted chirps. [0020]: “The transmitted radiation pulses 106 are reflected by objects in scene 108. 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 (teaches processing the received echo signal to detect location, Doppler velocity, and other characteristics of objects. [0020]: “processed by processor 104 to, for example, detect location, Doppler velocity, and other characteristics of objects in scene 108.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches:
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) 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 (teaches a millimeter-wave radar apparatus comprising a transceiver (transmitting antennas 214, receiving antennas 216, and associated RF circuitry), memory associated with FSM 202, and one or more processors (processor 104) communicatively coupled with the radar transceiver. [0006]; [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.”; [0023].)
the one or more processors configured to determine a range-domain scrambling code: As discussed under Claim 1, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches FSM 202 and processor 104 determining and applying the per-chirp phase code, constituting the range-domain scrambling code. ([0031]; [0043].)
determine a Doppler-domain scrambling sequence For the same reasons discussed under Claim 1, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate this functionality into the processor(s) of the apparatus, with a reasonable expectation of success.
perform the object sensing operation, the object sensing operation comprising at least one of transmitting via the transceiver or receiving via the transceiver, a two-dimensional (2D) scrambled frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal encoded with the range-domain scrambling code and the Doppler-domain scrambling sequence 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..
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 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 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.
Claims 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 Scherz et al. (US 2024/0402324 A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0233076 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) 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 PC-FMCW signal (teaches transmitting a phase-coded FMCW (PC-FMCW) signal—FMCW chirps with a phase code applied by the FSM. The reference is titled “Phase Coded FMCW Radar” and its central teaching is PC-FMCW transmission. ([0005]: “a method of operating a radar includes: generating a set of chirps; transmitting the set of chirps; … using a finite state machine (FSM) to apply a phase shift to each of the transmitted chirps or each of the received chirps based on a code.”)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) teaches: receiving a first echo signal in response to transmitting the PC-FMCW signal (teaches receiving echo signals in response to the transmitted chirps. [0020], as discussed under Claim 7.)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach: detecting one or more signal artifacts along with the first echo signal Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach detecting signal artifacts in the received echo signal as a distinct, monitored event. Jungmaier et al. discusses interference mitigation as a general benefit of phase modulation but does not teach detecting specific artifacts in the echo signal as a triggering condition. Scherz et al. (‘324) discusses spur artifacts caused by phase modulator inaccuracy but likewise does not teach detecting such artifacts in a received echo signal as a triggering condition for switching waveforms.
However, Chen et al. (‘076) teaches this element. Chen et al. teaches that received echo signals in MIMO radar systems may contain phantom target artifacts caused by strong reflectors at long range whose reflected signal energy leaks across transmitter correlation windows, and teaches that the radar detects and processes these artifacts. ([0064]: “In situations where a strong reflector is positioned at a long distance (e.g. τ.sub.max<τ.sub.l<2τ.sub.max), the reflected signal (originating from the mth transmitter) leaks into the (m+1)-th transmitter's cross-correlation window.”; [0062]: “to mitigate against the generation of phantom targets in this manner, a slow time phase coding scheme is applied to scramble each chirp.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the artifact detection teachings of Chen et al. to the PC-FMCW radar of Jungmaier et al. All three references are in the same field of FMCW radar employing phase scrambling codes, and all address the same problem of interference and spurious signal artifacts. A skilled artisan would understand that monitoring received PC-FMCW echo signals for artifacts—as taught by Chen et al.—provides the adaptive awareness needed to switch to the more robust 2D scrambled FMCW waveform when interference conditions warrant it. The technical benefit is improved radar robustness and interference resilience. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the artifact detection technique of Chen et al. relies on signal processing of the already-received echo signal, requiring no new hardware.
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach: transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal based at least in part on detecting the one or more signal artifacts: Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach switching to a 2D scrambled FMCW signal in response to detecting signal artifacts. Jungmaier et al. applies phase code modulation for general interference mitigation rather than as an adaptive response to detected artifacts. Scherz et al. (‘324) likewise does not teach detecting artifacts as a trigger for changing the transmitted waveform.
However, Chen et al. (‘076) teaches adapting the radar’s phase coding scheme in response to the presence of detected phantom target artifacts—the scrambling phase code is applied specifically to mitigate detected artifacts. ([0062]-[0064].) In the combination of Jungmaier et al., Scherz et al., and Chen et al., when artifacts are detected in the PC-FMCW echo signal (Chen et al., [0062]-[0064]), the system switches to transmitting the 2D scrambled FMCW signal (the combination of Jungmaier et al. and Scherz et al.) to suppress those artifacts. For the same reasons stated above, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) 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: transmitting the PC-FMCW signal comprises transmitting the PC-FMCW signal in a first repetitive transmitting sequence (teaches transmitting repeated frames of chirps, constituting a first repetitive transmitting sequence. [0035]: “In some embodiments, FSM 202 applies the same phase code to each frame.”; [0047]: “frame transmissions … may be separated by sleep intervals.”)
Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach: 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: Jungmaier et al. (‘825) does not explicitly teach transmitting a second distinct non-overlapping sequence of 2D scrambled FMCW signals following a first PC-FMCW sequence. Scherz et al. (‘324) does not explicitly teach non-overlapping sequences of this nature in response to artifact detection.
However, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches applying different scrambling sequences in successive, non-overlapping time intervals (frames). ([0016]-[0018]: “the control circuit is configured to apply the scrambling phase code sequence … in a first time interval … [and] a different second scrambling phase code sequence … in a subsequent second time interval.”) In the combination, the PC-FMCW transmissions and 2D scrambled FMCW transmissions occupy separate, non-overlapping time intervals. For the same reasons discussed under Claim 8, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement non-overlapping sequences to avoid mutual interference between the two waveforms, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10, Jungmaier et al. (‘825) in view of Scherz et al. (‘324) and further in view of Chen et al. (‘076) teaches the method according to Claims 1 and 8, and further teaches:
transmitting the PC-FMCW signal comprises transmitting the PC-FMCW signal in a first repetitive transmitting sequence: As discussed under Claim 9, Jungmaier et al. teaches transmitting repeated frames of chirps constituting a first repetitive transmitting sequence. ([0035]; [0047].)
Jungmaier et al. does not explicitly teach: 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, however, Scherz et al. (‘324) teaches alternating between different scrambling phase code sequences in successive frames, resulting in interspersed sequences. ([0018]: “the control circuit is configured to apply a different second scrambling phase code sequence to the first and to the second sequence of FMCW radar chirps in a subsequent second time interval.”) In the combination, the PC-FMCW and 2D scrambled FMCW transmissions are interspersed within the overall transmission sequence. For the same reasons discussed under Claim 8, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to intersperse the sequences to enable both interference monitoring and artifact suppression in an alternating manner, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
Conclusion
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