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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 11 of the Arguments Applicant argues that Kaiser does not disclose assignment of a set of emission parameters within a window of a specified size centered on a first set of emission parameters. The argument is not persuasive at least because as set forth in the rejection of original claim 6 (now incorporated in claim 1), a “window” of Kaiser is regarded as the entire 360 degree range centered on any set of parameters. This is not addressed by argument. Two additional observations are made concerning the limitation imposed: First, the claims do not require an actual step of identifying a window itself as part of the invention, if this is the intent. Rather, reference to the window is provided in a “wherein” statement and is merely descriptive of a subset from which the transmission parameters are selected in the selecting step. The claims indicate the window is in some way “used” but this use is not defined and the limiting effect is minimal, and Kaiser likewise “uses” the 360 degree “window”. This is particularly notable as the second observation is that while the now-incorporated language of claims 4 and 5 requires selecting a set of transmission parameters from a subset of sets of transmission parameters comprising the first set of transmission parameters, e.g. as discussed in the Remarks, it is noted that the independent claims additionally require that it is in fact “the set of transmission parameters of the radio signal corresponding to said orientation of the line of sight of the radar determined” that is ultimately selected (i.e. regardless of any preceding or following sets of parameters in a given “window”; note e.g. claim 1, lines 6-10). The claims also identify this set as the “first set of the transmission parameters”. In other words: in the Remarks at page 9 Applicant describes a window F1 and appears to suggest that any of the transmission parameters of this set, which is centered at ParSet3 may be the parameter selected, e.g. the claimed “second set of transmission parameters”. This is not what is required by the claims, if the intent. Indeed, with reference to Figure 4a, if ParSet3 is the set of transmission parameters of the radio signal corresponding to the orientation of the line of sight of the radar (as is illustrated), a selection of a different parameter set within window F1 (ParSet2 for example) would not be within the scope of the claims, which instead require selecting the set corresponding to the orientation of the radar. It is suggested that the claims be substantially revised to establish a formation of a fully defined “window” as well as the process by which the parameter set is ultimately selected. Notably, it appears unclear as to if, when, and why ParSet2 would be selected when ParSet3 is the set of parameters that corresponds to the orientation of the radar, if in fact the intent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4A and 4B number two cells of each illustration as “4”, whereas it appears clear one should be indicated as “5”. Correction or clarification is required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 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);
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);
wherein the sets of transmission parameters constituting said subset are identified by using a window centered on the first set of transmission parameters, said window comprising at least one second set of transmission parameters preceding the first set of transmission parameters among the plurality of sets of transmission parameters and at least one third set of transmission parameters following the first set of transmission parameters among the plurality of sets of transmission parameters, said window having a determined size (the limitation 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. Further, it is already required that the selected set is the one corresponding to the orientation of the line of sight of the radar). 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”, having a determined size of 360 degrees. This window has sets of parameters on either side of any given centered set (e.g. at 180 degrees)
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 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
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 Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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
Prosecution Insights