CTFR 18/683,366 CTFR 101124 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Arguments Applicant's argument, see Page 1, line 15-16 filed 03/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of the previously presented claims 1-10 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant’s argument is to merely state the amended claims “fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(b)”. This is a conclusory statement offered as an argument. While some of the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections were addressed through the amendments to the claims. The amended and newly introduced claims introduced new grounds for rejection which are detailed below in the section on 35 U.S.C. §112. Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Page 2, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of amended claims 1, 9 and 10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant advances three arguments against the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of amended claims 1, 9 and 10. A restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows: Argument 1: Applicant respectfully submits that Scheiner fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a combination of point groups emitted at different phases and different times, to generate the "composite cluster." Rather, Scheiner appears to merely describe conventional clustering in stage one and then, in stage two, using the clusters to ascertain additional data about the points. See e.g., Scheiner at Scheiner at p. 2060, col. 2, 2063 ("cluster merging"). (Page 2, lines 19-23) Examiner’s Response: The applicant’s argument is unclear. The applicant fails to explain the relevance of “different phases and times” for clustering. The applicant’s reading of Scheiner fails to address the portions of Scheiner that were specifically cited in the office action dated 12/16/2025. To aid the applicant in understanding the teachings of Scheiner, the applicant is directed to Figure 3 of Schneiner which show first clustering point and then merging the clusters. As well, in the section of Scheiner cited by the applicant, it is clearly taught that cluster merging is performed on clusters “ during the observed time frame ” (Scheiner Pg. 2063, col 2, lines 9-10). 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Argument 2: Applicant respectfully submits that Sahara and Scheiner fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious "a first transmission wave having a first phase transmitted at a first time and a second transmission wave having a second phase different from the first phase transmitted at a second time" and "clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave," as recited in claims 1, 10, and 11. (Page 2, lines 24-29) Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the statement of Applicant that Sahara fails to “a first transmission wave having a first phase transmitted at a first time and a second transmission wave having a second phase different from the first phase transmitted at a second time” . Sahara clearly teaches phase control of the chirped signal (first transmission, second transmission) both by frame and within frames ( [0046] Specifically, the phase control section 23 may adjust the phase of the transmission signal by appropriately advancing or delaying the phase of the signal supplied from the synthesizer 22 based on the control of the control section 10, for example. ). Additionally, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 recites the limitation “if a number of the plurality of clusters is smaller than or equal to a certain value ” and claim 4, which is dependent upon claim 2 recites the limitation “if a number of the clusters that include point groups of a certain number or more of points is smaller than a certain value ”. The expression is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the threshold of “a certain value” is in regard to the number of clusters, the number of points within all clusters, some of the clusters, or if a criteria exists for deciding which one. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention. Claims 3 and 5 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim. Claims 3-4 includes the claim limitation “clusters whose representative points are located within a certain distance”. The language is not clear in general, and the specification is not found to clarify the meaning. Rather, the feature is mentioned only by repeating the language of the claim at [0102]. The indicated criteria of “a certain distance” is not defined nor how it is derived. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention. Claim 5 is also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation “a single detection time based on… the first time and… the second time”, it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by this limitation. The term “single detection time” is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is the “single detection time” the first time, the second time, a weighted average based on the number of points? The specification does not provide a quantitative or objective criteria for defining the scope of this limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6 and 9-13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara et al. (WO2020075689A1 machine translation) in view of Scheiner et al. (N. Scheiner, N. Appenrodt, J. Dickmann and B. Sick, "A Multi-Stage Clustering Framework for Automotive Radar Data," 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, 2019, pp. 2060-2067) . Regarding claim 1, Sahara discloses an electronic device ( Fig. 2, electronic device 1, [0025] FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram schematically illustrating an example of the configuration of the electronic device 1 according to an embodiment. ) comprising: a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave ( Fig. 2, transmitting antenna 25, [0036] The signal generating unit 21 generates a signal (transmission signal) to be transmitted as a transmission wave T from the transmission antenna 25 under the control of the control unit 10. ); a reception antenna configured to receive a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave ( FIG. 2, receiving antenna 31, [0051] The receiving antenna 31 receives the reflected wave R. The reflected wave R is the transmitted wave T reflected by a predetermined object 200. ); a controller configured to control transmission of the transmission wave ( [0036] The signal generating unit 21 generates a signal (transmission signal) to be transmitted as a transmission wave T from the transmission antenna 25 under the control of the control unit 10. ); and a signal processor configured to detect an object on a basis of a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave ( [0060] In this way, the electronic device 1 of one embodiment can detect an object 200 that reflects the transmission wave T based on the transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave T and the received signal received as the reflected wave R. - [0051] to [0059] describing the signal processing chain. ), wherein the controller is configured ( [0036] When generating a transmission signal, the signal generating unit 21 may allocate a frequency to the transmission signal based on control by the control unit 10, for example. Specifically, the signal generating unit 21 may allocate the frequency of the transmission signal in accordance with the parameters set by the parameter setting unit 16. ) to control the transmission antenna to transmit the transmission wave as a first transmission wave having a first phase transmitted at a first time ( [0067] The parameter setting unit 16 may also control the output, phase, amplitude, frequency, frequency range, etc. of the chirp signal. ) and a second transmission wave having a second phase different ( [0046] Specifically, the phase control section 23 may adjust the phase of the transmission signal by appropriately advancing or delaying the phase of the signal supplied from the synthesizer 22 based on the control of the control section 10, for example. ) from the first phase transmitted at a second time ( [0042] In FIG. 3, frames 2 and onward may have the same or different configuration as frame 1. ). Sahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processor is configured to determine a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave and output a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster. However, Scheiner teaches a radar system and techniques for clustering return data ( Page 2060, col. 2, lines 17-19, The two-stage clustering consists of an ordinary clustering algorithm that is improved in a first stage. ) wherein the signal processor is configured to determine a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave ( Page 2063, col. 2, lines 8-10, Therefore, the neighborhood criterion of a secondary clustering step is formulated as: Equation 6, where dmin is the Euclidean distance between the two closest detection members of corresponding clusters during the observed time frame ) and output a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster ( Page 2060, col. 2, lines 19-22, In the second stage, preliminary clusters from stage 1 are merged using domain knowledge to extract additional features from the combined information contained in the pre-clustered data points. ). Sahara and Scheiner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radar technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composite clustering technique of Scheiner with the electrical device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved detection through aggregating the cluster data from multiple frames to more clearly identify objects. Regarding claim 6, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teach the electronic device of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Sahara further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a phase of the transmission wave ( [0046] Specifically, the phase control section 23 may adjust the phase of the transmission signal by appropriately advancing or delaying the phase of the signal supplied from the synthesizer 22 based on the control of the control section 10, for example. ). Regarding claim 9, Sahara discloses a method for controlling an electronic device, the method comprising the steps of: transmitting a transmission wave using a transmission antenna ( [0036] The signal generating unit 21 generates a signal (transmission signal) to be transmitted as a transmission wave T from the transmission antenna 25 under the control of the control unit 10. ) the transmission wave including a first transmission wave having a first phase transmitted at a first time ( [0067] The parameter setting unit 16 may also control the output, phase, amplitude, frequency, frequency range, etc. of the chirp signal. ) and a second transmission wave having a second phase different ( [0046] Specifically, the phase control section 23 may adjust the phase of the transmission signal by appropriately advancing or delaying the phase of the signal supplied from the synthesizer 22 based on the control of the control section 10, for example. ) from the first phase transmitted at a second time ( [0042] In FIG. 3, frames 2 and onward may have the same or different configuration as frame 1. ); receiving a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave, using a reception antenna ( FIG. 2, receiving antenna 31, [0051] The receiving antenna 31 receives the reflected wave R. The reflected wave R is the transmitted wave T reflected by a predetermined object 200. ); and detecting an object on a basis of a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave ( [0060] In this way, the electronic device 1 of one embodiment can detect an object 200 that reflects the transmission wave T based on the transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave T and the received signal received as the reflected wave R. - [0051] to [0059] describes the signal processing chain. ). Sahara does not explicitly disclose determining a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave and output a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster. Scheiner teaches determining a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave ( Page 2063, col. 2, lines 8-10, Therefore, the neighborhood criterion of a secondary clustering step is formulated as: Equation 6, where dmin is the Euclidean distance between the two closest detection members of corresponding clusters during the observed time frame ) and outputing a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster ( Page 2060, col. 2, lines 19-22, In the second stage, preliminary clusters from stage 1 are merged using domain knowledge to extract additional features from the combined information contained in the pre-clustered data points. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composite clustering technique of Scheiner with the electrical device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved detection through aggregating the cluster data from multiple frames to more clearly identify objects. Regarding claim 10, Sahara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by a program causing an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: transmit a transmission wave using a transmission antenna ( FIG. 2, transmitting antenna 25, [0036] The signal generating unit 21 generates a signal (transmission signal) to be transmitted as a transmission wave T from the transmission antenna 25 under the control of the control unit 10. ), the transmission wave as a first transmission wave having a first phase transmitted at a first time ( [0067] The parameter setting unit 16 may also control the output, phase, amplitude, frequency, frequency range, etc. of the chirp signal. ) and a second transmission wave having a second phase different ( [0046] Specifically, the phase control section 23 may adjust the phase of the transmission signal by appropriately advancing or delaying the phase of the signal supplied from the synthesizer 22 based on the control of the control section 10, for example. ) from the first phase transmitted at a second time ( [0042] In FIG. 3, frames 2 and onward may have the same or different configuration as frame 1. ); receive a reflected wave, which is the reflected transmission wave, using a reception antenna ( FIG. 2, receiving antenna 31, [0051] The receiving antenna 31 receives the reflected wave R. The reflected wave R is the transmitted wave T reflected by a predetermined object 200. ); and detect an object on a basis of a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave ( [0060] In this way, the electronic device 1 of one embodiment can detect an object 200 that reflects the transmission wave T based on the transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave T and the received signal received as the reflected wave R. - [0051] to [0059] describes the signal processing chain. ). Sahara does not explicitly disclose to determine a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave and output a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster. Scheiner teaches to determine a composite cluster by clustering together a first point group received as a first reflected wave of the first transmission wave and a second point group received as a second reflected wave of the second transmission wave ( Page 2063, col. 2, lines 8-10, Therefore, the neighborhood criterion of a secondary clustering step is formulated as: Equation 6, where dmin is the Euclidean distance between the two closest detection members of corresponding clusters during the observed time frame ) and output a detection result of detecting the object based on the composite cluster ( Page 2060, col. 2, lines 19-22, In the second stage, preliminary clusters from stage 1 are merged using domain knowledge to extract additional features from the combined information contained in the pre-clustered data points. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composite clustering technique of Scheiner with the electrical device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved detection through aggregating the cluster data from multiple frames to more clearly identify objects. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teach the electronic device according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Sahara further teaches wherein the first transmission wave is a first frame and the second transmission wave is a second frame and the first transmission wave is a first subframe of a frame and the second transmission wave is a second subframe of the frame ( [0041] That is, each of frames 1 and 2 shown in FIG. 3 includes 16 subframes. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, a frame interval of a predetermined length may be included between frames. ). Regarding claim 13, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teach the electronic device according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Sahara fails to teach wherein the signal processor is configured to output the result of detecting the object as the detection result of detecting the object at a single detection time based on the composite cluster of the first point group received as the first reflected wave of the first transmission wave transmitted at the first time and the second point group received as the second reflected wave of the second transmission wave transmitted at the second time. Scheiner teaches wherein the signal processor is configured to output the result of detecting the object as the detection result of detecting the object at a single detection time based on the composite cluster of the first point group received as the first reflected wave of the first transmission wave transmitted at the first time and the second point group received as the second reflected wave of the second transmission wave transmitted at the second time ( Pg. 2060, col. 2, lines 2-19; This concept is further refined in [11] where the time dimension is added to the data grid and parameter optimization on different distance-velocity regions is used to generate several sets of clustering coefficients… In this article, the DBSCAN algorithm is evaluated using different distance metrics based on an x/y/vr/t grid. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processor of Sahara by including the single detection time of Scheiner to yield a predictable result of improving the likelihood of object detection by accumulating data points over time ( Pg. 2060, col. 1, lines 17-22; In order to decide which data points make up an object instance, static radar object detection is able to accumulate data of several measurement cycles to build grid maps as a compensation for the data sparsity [2]. A common approach for identifying moving road users is to utilize clustering algorithms for data grouping. ). Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara as modified by Scheiner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueta et al. (US PG Pub. 20240183944). Regarding claim 2, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teach the electronic device according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporate. Sahara as modified by Scheiner teaches the signal processor is configured to determine a plurality of clusters from a plurality of point groups including the first point group and the second point group ( See the rejection of claim 1 above ). Sahara as modified by Scheiner fails to teach if a number of the plurality of clusters is smaller than or equal to a certain value, generate the composite cluster by clustering together the plurality of point groups. However, Ueta teaches a radar system with cluster signal processing where the signal processor is configured to determine a plurality of clusters and if a number of the plurality of clusters is smaller than or equal to a certain value, generate the composite cluster by clustering together the plurality of point groups ( [0116] In a case where the distance between the clusters is equal to or less than the threshold (YES in S703), cluster coupler 1100 superposes information on past clusters thereon, thereby extracting, for example, for each of the two clusters, a past cluster(s) present within radius r, which has been designated, from the center of each cluster (S704). ). Sahara, Scheiner and Ueta are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radar signal processing technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cluster superposition of Ueta with the electronic device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved accuracy in sensing as noted by Ueta ( [0044] The present disclosure indicates, for example, exemplary configurations and operations each capable of improving the accuracy of sensing (or determination) in a vehicle sensing system using a radar apparatus. ). Regarding claim 3, Sahara as modified by Scheiner and Ueta teach the electronic device according to claim 2, accordingly the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporate. Sahara further disclose wherein the signal processor is configured to generate a representative point for each cluster among the plurality of clusters (Examiner’s note: the DBSCAN algorithm contains the step of defining a “core point” for each cluster. Scheiner provides a basic description of the DBSCAN algorithm in the introduction which includes this information; See Scheiner Pg. 2061, col. 1, lines 21-33 and Fig. 4 ), and generate the composite cluster from, among the plurality of clusters, clusters whose representative points are located within a certain distance. ( [0066] The object detection unit 14 may perform object detection by, for example, performing a clustering process based on the supplied distance information, speed information, and angle information. Known algorithms used for clustering data include DBSCAN (Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise).… Information on the distance, speed, angle, and power of the object detected by the object detection unit 14 may be supplied to the detection range determination unit 15. ). Regarding claim 4, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teach the electronic device according to claim 3, accordingly the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporate. Sahara as modified by Scheiner fails to explicitly disclose if, among the clusters whose representative points are located within the certain distance, a number of the clusters that include point groups of a certain number or more of points is smaller than a certain value, the signal processor generates the composite cluster by clustering together the point groups of the clusters that include the point groups of the certain number or more of points. However, Ueta teaches if, among the clusters whose representative points are located within the certain distance, a number of the clusters that include point groups of a certain number or more of points is smaller than a certain value, the signal processor generates the composite cluster by clustering together the point groups of the clusters that include the point groups of the certain number or more of points ( [0053] Further, the preprocessing may also include processing of increasing point cloud information by using information on several frames at past time points before a current time point, ). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the frame aggregation of Ueta with the electronic device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved accuracy in sensing as noted by Ueta above. Regarding claim 5, Sahara as modified by Scheiner and Ueta teach the electronic device according to claim 4, accordingly the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporate. Sahara as modified by Scheiner fails to explicitly disclose the signal processor is configured to generate an average, a median, a minimum value, or a maximum value of representative points of the composite cluster as the result of the detection of the object. However, Ueta teaches a radar system with cluster signal processing where the signal processor is configured to generate an average, a median, a minimum value, or a maximum value of representative points of the composite cluster as the result of the detection of the object ( [0056] For example, a feature value may be created for each cluster. The feature value may include at least one of eleven parameters indicated below: [0057] the radius of the minimum circle including a point cloud(s) in a cluster; [0058] the number of point clouds in a cluster; [0059] the proportion of core points in a cluster; [0060] cluster covariance indicating variations of the positions of point clouds in a cluster; [0061] the width of a point cloud in a cluster in the X coordinate; [0062] the width of a point cloud in a cluster in the Y coordinate; [0063] the width of a point cloud in a cluster in the Z coordinate; [0064] the average Doppler velocity of point clouds in a cluster; [0065] Doppler velocity variance of point clouds in a cluster; [0066] the average signal to noise ratio (SNR) of point clouds in a cluster; and [0067] SNR variance of point clouds in a cluster. ). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cluster metrics of Ueta with the electronic device of Sahara to yield a predictable result of improved accuracy in characterizing and classifying clusters as noted by Ueta ( [0044] The present disclosure indicates, for example, exemplary configurations and operations each capable of improving the accuracy of sensing (or determination) in a vehicle sensing system using a radar apparatus. ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara as modified by Scheiner as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sudarsan (US PG Pub. 20210208242) . Regarding claims 14-17, Sahara as modified by Scheiner teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporate. Sahara as modified by Scheiner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the transmission antenna to transmit the first transmission wave at a first radiation direction and the second transmission wave at a second radiation direction that is 1° to 3° from the first radiation direction; 0.50 to 5° from the first radiation direction; 1° to 15° from the first radiation direction; or up to 10° from the first radiation direction Sudarsan teaches that it is known in the art that beam steering to any range of angles is possible with multiple antenna elements and phase shifting elements ( [0027] The use of PS circuits 316, 318 and 320, 322 enables separate control of the phase of each element in the transmit antennas 308, 309 and receive antennas 312, 313. Unlike early passive architectures, the beam is steerable not only to discrete angles but to any angle (i.e., from 0° to 360°) within the FoV using active beamforming antennas. ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the controller of the device of Sahara is capable of varying the phase of the transmission wave such that the first transmission wave is at a first radiation direction and the second transmission wave at a second radiation direction that is 1° to 3° from the first radiation direction; 0.50 to 5° from the first radiation direction; 1° to 15° from the first radiation direction; or up to 10° from the first radiation direction as taught by Sudarsan, since such a modification would improve the ability of the device to transmit and receive energy more efficiently in specific directions while allowing for varying the field of view versus the range of detection thereby improving the adaptability of the radar system to changes in requires ranges or fields of view as noted by Sudarsan ( [0027] Further, the flexibility of multiple element antennas allows narrow beam width for transmit and receive... A narrow beam improves the directivity of the antenna and provides the radar system 300 with a significantly longer detection range. ). For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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. /JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646 /JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 2 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 3 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 4 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 5 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 6 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 7 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 8 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 9 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 10 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 11 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 12 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 13 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 15 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 16 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 17 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 18 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 19 Art Unit: 3646 Application/Control Number: 18/683,366 Page 20 Art Unit: 3646
Prosecution Insights