Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07-15-2026 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12-17, 19, 23-25, and 28-30 are entered and considered.
Claims 1-4, 12-15, 23-25, 29-30 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claims 5-6, 8, 13, 16-17, 19, 25 and 28 are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12, 14-15, 23-24 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arslan et al (US 11,632,281) in view of Kim et al (US 2012/0170625). Hereinafter referred to as Arslan and Kim.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 29-30. Arslan discloses a signal sending method, comprising generating a first transmission signal (see at least figures 2: illustrates a transmit frame design of an exemplary OFDM waveform), wherein the first transmission signal comprises a communication signal and a sensing signal (see at least figures 2 and abstract: orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is proposed for the applications of joint radar-sensing and communication (JRC)), and sending the first transmission signal (see at least abstract and figures 1-2).
Arslan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that at least two periodic repetitions of the sensing signal exist within a time period of each orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing symbol in a time domain. However, Kim, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a method of repeating of known signal structures within OFDM-based transmissions including repeating fields, headers or waveform segments (see at least title, abstract and figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Kim, as indicted, into the communication method of Arslan for the purpose of improving sensing accuracy, increase reliability and improve detection robustness.
Regarding claims 2 and 13. Arslan in view Kim discloses a method wherein the sensing signal is configured to acquire channel information and environmental information, and wherein the environmental information comprises at least one of: distance information, Doppler information, frequency information, angle information, or imaging information (see at least Col. 6, lines 10-22 and Col. 7, lines 32-35).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Arslan in view Kim discloses a method wherein the communication signal and the sensing signal are located in different subcarriers for orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (see at least Col.9 lines 51-56).
Regarding claims 4 and 15. Arslan in view Kim discloses a method wherein a number of the at least two periodic repetitions is N=2.sup.m, wherein m is a positive integer (Kim: see at least title, abstract and figure 1).
Regarding claim 23. Arslan in view of Kim discloses a method wherein processing the first received signal comprises: processing the communication signal of the first received signal by using an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing receiver and processing the sensing signal of the first received signal by a radar receiver (see at least abstract, title and figure 1).
Regarding claim 24. Arslan in view of Kim discloses a method wherein processing the first received signal comprises: processing the first received signal by using an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing receiver (see at least abstract, title and figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 16-17, 19, 25 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07-15-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ representative argues that the prior art of record fails to teach “at least two periodic repetitions of the sensing signal exist within a time period of each orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing symbol in a time domain”.
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).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Arslan teaches a joint radar-sending commnunication waveform based on unique wwrd OFDM. In Arslan, the transmitted OFDM signal includes communication information together with a predetermined sensing/radar sequence. Thus, Arslan establishes the underlying architecture recited by the claim: an OFDM transmission containing bothe communication component and a sensing component. On the other hand, Kim further supplements Arslan by teaching repetition of known signal information within the structure of an OFDM symbol. In particular, Kim teaches an OFDM arrangement in which multiple instances of signal information are repeated within an OFDM symbol and further teaches selectable repetition schemes. Thus, Kim demonstrates that repeating predetermined signal information multiple times within the OFDM symbol structure was a known OFDM signal design, as disclosed above.
Examiner would like to indicate that the claim language does not require a particular sensing waveform, repetition intervals, repetition length, repetition factors beyond “at least two”, particular positioning of the repetitions within the OFDM symbol interval or…rather the claim broadly requires that at least two periodic repetitions of the sensing signal exist within the time period of each OFDM symbol in the time domain.
Therefore, considering the prior art collectively rather than individually, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention would have configured Arslan’s predetermined sensing sequence according to Kim’s known repetition technique so that at least two periodic repetitions of the sensing signal occur within the time period of an OFDM symbol in the time domain.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, Applicants’ argument does not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Fraiday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights