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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 9 reads awkwardly and appears to contain improper grammar. Revision is required. For example, at least --constitute-- and --belonging-- are suggested to replace “constituting” and “belong”.
Also in the preamble, “radial” should read --radar--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 5-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of radio signals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, in referring to the selecting of claim 1, requires “selecting said set of transmission parameters furthermore comprises:... selecting said set of transmission parameters from a subset…”. By the use of “furthermore comprises”, it is not clear if this is to be a “further” (additional) “selecting”, or in fact they are one and the same. From the specification, it is apparent that there is only one “selecting” intended and the claim is interpreted accordingly. Clarification is required. Claims 6-8 depend on claim 5 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 9 requires “the transmission parameters constituting a set of transmission parameters belong to the group consisting of:…" Notwithstanding the objection above, it is unclear what limitation the language is intended to impose. Is this to say this entire group is included in the transmission parameters? Or that the transmission powers may be any one(s) of this group? It is observed that the original specification (page 4, lines 19) employs different language, providing an open ended group. In view of the disclosure in general it appears the intent is to limit the method to have transmission parameters which include one or more of the parameters from this group and the claim is interpreted accordingly. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser (5,497,162).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser discloses a method for transmitting a radio signal by a radar installed in a vehicle (column 5, lines 26-28), comprising:
determining an orientation of a line of sight of the radar (column 2, lines 51-53), a plurality of sets of transmission parameters of the radio signal being associated with a corresponding plurality of orientations of the line of sight of the radar (column 2, lines 38-40);
selecting, from the plurality of sets of radio signal transmission parameters, the set of transmission parameters of the radio signal corresponding to said orientation of the line of sight of the radar determined ((column 2, lines 38-column 1, line 1; column 3, lines 30-41); and
transmitting the radio signal in accordance with the set of transmission parameters selected (column 5, lines 11-15).
Regarding claims 11-13, Kaiser likewise anticipates the claimed device comprising a processor (40), radar (Figure 1), and computer readable medium comprising a computer program (implicit for the computer implemented method addressed above).
Regarding claim 2, Kaiser discloses the orientation of the line of sight of the vehicle is determined by using a navigation system (column 3, lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 3, Kaiser discloses the plurality of radio signals are defined by said sets of transmission parameters are orthogonal to each other (column 4, lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 4, Kaiser discloses a set of the transmission parameters of the radio signal is distinguished from other sets of transmission parameters belonging to the plurality of sets of transmission parameters by a value of at least one of the parameters constituting the set of parameters (column 2, lines 55- column 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kaiser discloses the selecting comprises identifying a first set of the transmission parameters corresponding to said orientation of the line of sight of the radar determined, and selecting said set of transmission parameters from a subset of sets of transmission parameters comprising said first set of transmission parameters (column 2, line 56- column 3, line 13).
Regarding claim 6, the claim requires that the sets of transmission parameters are identified “using a window” but provides minimal indication of what the widow is and no limitation as to what the step of “using” entails. The limitation is anticipated by Kaiser at least in that the entire 360 degree range of bearings, with each bearing or group of bearings having assigned parameter sets (column 3, lines 34-41, column 4, line 45- column 5, line 6), is considered a “window”. This window has sets of parameters on either side of a centered set (e.g. at 180 degrees).
Regarding claims 7-8, in the example per claim 6, the sets of parameters of Kaiser are “ordered” by both increasing a decreasing “orientation value” i.e. degrees on one side or the other of the 180 degree center.
Regarding claim 9, Kaiser discloses parameters of the claimed group (column 2, line 56- column 3, line 3).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Himmelstoss et al. (2022/0390583).
Kaiser is not found to disclose receiving information on synchronization of radars with each other, said set of radio signal transmission parameters then being selected according to the orientation of the line of sight of the radar determined and the synchronization information received.
Himmelstoss discloses a related method for low-interference operation where radar sensors in different vehicles receive synchronization information and transmission parameters (e.g. time of transmission), are selected according to the information ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to add time division among the parameters of Kaiser, enabled by receiving synchronization information as claimed and as described by Himmelstoss so as to add additional protection against interference among radars (Himmelstoss [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gulati et al. discloses selecting radar transmission parameters based on a synchronized reference time. The remaining references all describe selecting radar transmission parameters in accordance with a line of sight of the radar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646