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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-12, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-4, 9-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diener US 2004/0028003 A1 (Diener) in view of Boutaud EP 3067764 (Boutaud) and Chai et al. US 2021/0241108 (Chai).
Regarding claim 1, Diener teaches a waveform detection interface between a wireless application and a waveform detector (note that the instant specification defines waveform to mean a set of pulses on page 4, lines 24-25, and Diener also teaches detection of pulses as shown in Fig.6), the waveform detection interface comprising processing circuitry configured to: exchange management plane information between the application and the waveform detector, the management plane information including capability information related to waveform detection (between 94 in Fig.6 and 20 thru 70 in Fig.6 exchange information related to “capacity rating”, capacity or capability in the frequency band is available, carrying capacity of the entire frequency, note [0378]); exchange control plane information between the application and the waveform detector, the control plane information including configuration information related to a configuration of the waveform detector (pulse event test, information related to configuration of pulses, short or long pulses, note [0357]); and exchange user plane information between the application and the waveform detector (measured properties of detected pulses, 6020, 6030 in Fig.13, note [0357]). Although Diener teaches all as explained above, Diener does not explicitly teach that the exchange of the limitations above are between the wireless application and the waveform detector. Diener does teach, in Fig. 6, the wireless application (94 in Fig.6) and the waveform detector (elements 70 and below in Fig.6). One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the components in Fig.6 are interoperable in that all information related to processing of signals will be exchanged within the necessary components in Fig.6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the information explained above would be exchanged between the wireless application and the waveform detector for the purpose of effectively maintaining the performance of devices and networks of devices operating in frequencies of unlicensed band (note [0019]).
However, Diener does not explicitly teach the control plane information including pulse metadata for at least one of correlation of detected pulses and training of an artificial intelligence algorithm (NOTE: applicant’s argument on p.13 states specification on p.32, lines 9-15 supports this limitation and on page 13 lines 1-2 of the argument further supports the interpretation that “at least one of correlation of detected pulse AND training of an artificial intelligence” is interpreted herein to mean “at least one of correlation of detected pulse OR training of an artificial intelligence.” This interpretation is consistent with MPEP 2111.01(I) in that plain meaning should be given unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, wherein the specification on page 32 describes “…pulse meta data (for correlation of detected pulses OR training of machine learning / AI algorithms)…”).
Boutaud teaches, in a similar field of endeavor, a control plane information including pulse metadata (data storage including meta data related to pulse signals and suggests that such can be used in industrial automation systems, note [0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Boutaud into the system of Diener of wherein the control plane information would include meta data related to pulse signals for the purpose of improving sensor management components (note [0115]). While Diener in view of Boutaud teaches all as recited in the claim, do not explicitly teach that the meta data is used for training of an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Chai teaches meta data is used for training of an artificial intelligence algorithm (see 101, 102, 103, 105 and 106 input data to train AI, 110 in Fig.1, and note [0124 – 0127] metadata used for training; deep neural network (DNN) training metadata for AI training, [0056]). As a result, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that other systems with data can be further improved through the implementation of AI and that metadata can be used to train it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chai in the system of Diener and Boutaud for the purpose of improving the performance of artificial neural networks (note [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Diener further teaches wherein the control plane information includes pulse configuration information to configure the waveform detector to detect a set of at least one pulse characteristic in a signal to be processed by the application (detect pulse characteristic of short or long pulses, note [0357]).
Regarding claim 3, Diener further teaches wherein the at least one pulse characteristic includes at least one of a pulse width, a pulse-chirp frequency range and pulse power (detect pulse characteristic of short or long pulses, note [0357], wherein one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that short or long pulses would have different pulse width, capacity of the entire frequency, note [0378], and note [0091] pulse event data including power associated with the detected pulse).
Regarding claim 4, Diener further teaches wherein the control plane information includes waveform configuration information to configure the waveform detector to detect a waveform characteristic (again, note that the instant specification defines waveform to mean a set of pulses on page 4, lines 24-25, waveform or set of pulses of ‘short pulses’ or ‘long pulses’, note [0357]).
Regarding claim 9, Diener further teaches wherein the user plane information includes an instruction to invoke the waveform detector (Start Pulse Detector Test in Fig.13).
Regarding claim 10, Diener further teaches wherein the user plane information includes I and Q sample information (note [0283] of numSampleIntervals and avgSampleDurationMs). And although Diener does not explicitly teach that the sample information includes I and Q samples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate as such because I and Q are just another well-known format of representing input signals. Other well-known formats of samples may be called in-phase and quadrature, real and imaginary, and amplitude and phase. The advantage of using I and Q samples over others may be for the purpose of easy computations for certain systems.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 10.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diener US 2004/0028003 A1 (Diener) in view of Boutaud EP 3067764 (Boutaud) and Chai et al. US 2021/0241108 (Chai) and in further view of Miller US 2004/0023674.
Regarding claim 6, Diener in view of Boutaud and Chai teaches all as applied to claim 1. Diener further teaches wherein the user plane information includes event information concerning at least one of a pulse detection event (detect pulse characteristic of short or long pulses, note [0357]) and a waveform detection event (detect pulse characteristic of short or long pulses, note [0357]). However, Diener does not further teach wherein the event information further including an indication of event detection confidence. Miller teaches in a similar field of endeavor of detecting pulses operating in an unlicensed frequency bands where an event of pulse detection includes confidence level based on classification of the signals (note [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Miller into the system of Diener for the purpose determining that the signal classification holds over time (note [0121]).
Regarding claim 7, Diener in view of Miller teaches all as applied to claim 6. Diener further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform post-processing of the event information (post-processing of event management based on graphs and histograms, note [0377])
Regarding claim 8, Diener in view of Miller teaches all as applied to claim 7. Diener further teaches wherein the post-processing includes at least one of a correlation of past event information with the event information (post-processing of event management based on graphs and histograms, note [0377]) and machine learning based at least in part on the event information (machine learning is interpreted herein to mean post-processing of event management based on graphs and histograms, note [0377]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diener US 2004/0028003 A1 (Diener) in view of Boutaud EP 3067764 (Boutaud) and Chai et al. US 2021/0241108 (Chai) and in further view of Bertagna US 2010/0039308.
Regarding claim 5, Diener in view of Boutaud and Chai teaches all as applied to claim 4. However, Diener does not explicitly teach wherein the waveform characteristic includes at least one of a number of bursts, burst duration and a number of pulses per burst. Bertagna teaches wherein the waveform characteristic includes at least one of a number of bursts, burst duration and a number of pulses per burst (see Table 3 of waveform parameters represented in pulse width, PRI, Pulses per Burst, Number of Bursts, Total Duration, and DFS Spec.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bertagna into the system of Diener of characterizing the waveform as pulses per burst for the purpose of effectively detecting radar having a time-varying waveform (note [0089-0096]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SAM K. AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-3044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5PM.
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, James Kramer can be reached at 571-272-6783. 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.
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights