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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 15 March 2024, 26 March 2025 and 05 August 2025. The references have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the localization computing unit" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not contain a localization computing unit, therefore the unit of Claim 11 was not previously established and lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slemp (US PGPub 2018/0267160) in view of Haixiang et al. (Haixiang, CN105739542 translation).
Referring to Claim 1, Slemp teaches at least one movably arranged localization sensor (Fig. 12 #47 containing #44/45; [0109]) (1.1, 10.1) which is designed in the form of a radar sensor and comprising means for detecting the position of the at least one localization sensor (Fig. 12-14; #45; [0109]) (1.1, 10.1), characterized in that the at least one localization sensor (1.1, 10.1) has means for generating a non-homogenous radiation characteristic (Fig. 12-14 #44; [0109]), said means being designed such that a localization radiation lobe (1.3) formed therewith has a signal amplitude (Fig. 30 #70; [0110]), but does not explicitly disclose nor limit amplitude that is based on a first localization angle (50) such that the signal amplitude has a localization signal curve (52), wherein the localization signal curve (52) is based on a second localization angle (54).
While the Examiner interprets the rotation as taught by [0109-0110] to implicitly teach the localization curve being based on the first and second localization angle it is not readily stated as such. However, Haixiang teaches amplitude that is based on a first localization angle such that the signal amplitude has a localization signal curve, wherein the localization signal curve is based on a second localization angle; [0003-0021], particularly [0015].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slemp with beam pattern control as taught by Haixiang so as to predictably and accurately perform beam tracking control to points of interest.
Referring to Claim 2, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the first localization angle (50) is arranged in an azimuth direction and the second localization angle (54) is arranged in an elevation direction; See citations of Haixiang as disclosed above.
Referring to Claim 3, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches that the radiation characteristic is so non-homogeneous that a correlation of the localization signal curves (52) of different second localization angles (54) results in a maximum value of less than or equal to 0.5, preferably less than or equal to 0.3, particularly preferably less than or equal to 0.1; See disclosure of Haixiang as this could easily be derived through the beam tracking control.
Referring to Claim 4, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the means for generating a non-homogeneous radiation characteristic is formed by a cover (Fig. 11 #42; [0109]) (1.2).
Referring to Claim 5, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the means for generating a non-homogeneous radiation characteristic is formed by a transmitting and/or receiving antenna with an antenna array with a plurality of antenna elements, the individual antenna elements being at least partially arranged at irregular distances from one another, and/or are oriented differently, and/or are at least partially arranged in different planes; See Fig. 12-14 and #44/45 and associated text of Slemp.
Referring to Claim 6, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the localization radiation lobe (1.3) has a second opening angle (56) of at least 90°, preferably of at least 120o and the ratio of the second opening angle (56) of the localization radiation lobe (1.3) to a first opening angle (58) of the localization radiation lobe (1.3) is more than 5:1, preferably more than 10:1; See [0109-0110] and Fig. 30 and associated text of Slemp as well as Haixiang [0032].
Referring to Claim 7, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the at least one localization sensor (1.1, 10.1) is arranged on a rotor (3.1), the rotor (3.1) is arranged rotatably relative to a stator (4.1), and the means for detecting a localization sensor position is designed to capture the position of the rotor (3.1) relative to the stator (4.1); see combined citations and [0032] of Haixiang.
Referring to Claim 8, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the means for detecting a localization sensor position is formed by an encoder system with at least one reading head (3.2.1, 3.2.2) and a material measure (4.2); implicit by [0109] of Slemp.
Referring to Claim 9, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the radar system (100) has a localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2) which is designed to detect a first localization component, a second localization component and a distance value (72) of a reflected localization signal (71); [0121-0122] and Fig. 24 of Slemp.
Referring to Claim 10, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches characterized in that the first localization component is formed by an azimuth angle (74) and the second localization component is formed by an elevation angle; [0121-0122] and Fig. 24 of Slemp.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slemp as modified by Haixiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mahmoud et al. (Mahmoud, US PGPub 2020/0158862).
Referring to Claim 11, Slemp as modified by Haixang teaches the limitations of Claim 1 above, but do not explicitly disclose nor limit that the localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2) is designed to compare a second reflected localization signal with a first reflected localization signal which has the same first localization component and to further process only differing signal components.
However, Mahmoud teaches that the localization computing unit (3.3.1, 3.3.2) is designed to compare a second reflected localization signal with a first reflected localization signal which has the same first localization component and to further process only differing signal components; [0197-0198].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slemp as modified by Haixiang with the processing of different components as taught by Mahmoud as the method predictably provides improved positioning solutions while keeping processor load as low as possible.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slemp as modified by Haixiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chunpeng et al. (Chunpeng, CN212580080).
Referring to Claim 12, Slemp as modified by Haixiang teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) for identifying an object (8), an identification radiation lobe (2.2) can be generated by means of the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) and wherein the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) is designed as a fixed radar sensor.
However, Chunpeng teaches at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) for identifying an object (8), an identification radiation lobe (2.2) can be generated by means of the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) and wherein the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) is designed as a fixed radar sensor; See Fig. 1 # 20 and associated text.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slemp as modified by Haixiang with the identification sensor arrangement as taught by Chunpeng as the design allows for predictable integration into different equipment.
Referring to Claim 13, Slemp as modified by Haixiang and Chunpeng teach that the identification radiation lobe (2.2) has a first opening angle (64) of at least 90°, preferably of at least 120o and the identification radiation lobe (2.2) has a second opening angle (62) of at least 90°, preferably of at least 120o; see citations of Claim 6 above.
Referring to Claim 14, Slemp as modified by Haixiang and Chunpeng teach that the at least one identification sensor (2.1, 20.1) is arranged on the stator (4.1); see citations of both Haixiang and Chunpeng.
Referring to Claim 15, Slemp as modified by Haixiang and Chunpeng teach that the radar system (100) has at least one identification computing unit (4.3.1, 4.3.2) which is designed to identify a radar signature of a reflected identification signal; see citations of Claim 9 above.
Referring to Claim 16, Slemp as modified by Haixiang and Chunpeng teach that hat the radar system (100) has a central computing unit (5) which is designed to assign the reflected identification signal to the reflected localization signal (71); see citations of Claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646