N 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 17-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US 11968704 B2), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Kwak teaches a processor for performing radar and communication operations, connectable to a radio transceiver capable of transmitting radar and communication radio signals over at least a first and a second frequency range (col. 9 line 59 – col. 10 line 1, “Referring to (b) of FIG. 10 , in transmission modes 2/4, the UE may schedule resources on its own. More specifically, transmission mode 2 may be applied to a sidelink communication, and the UE may select a resource from a predetermined resource pool on its own and may then perform sidelink operations. Transmission mode 4 may be applied to a V2X communication, and the UE may carry out a sensing/SA decoding procedure, and so on, and select a resource within a selection window on its own and may then perform V2X operations.”; col. 16 lines 60-64, “For example, the processor(s) [102] may process information within the memory(s) [104] to generate first information/signals and then transmit radio signals including the first information/signals through the transceiver(s) [106].”; col. 26 lines 29-33, “The sensor unit [140b] may include a proximity sensor, an illumination sensor, an acceleration sensor, a magnetic sensor, a gyro sensor, an inertial sensor, an RGB sensor, an IR sensor, a fingerprint recognition sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a light sensor, a microphone and/or a radar.”; claim 1, “A method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second device, first information related to a first resource reserved by the second device, the first information including information related to a first transmission priority; receiving, from a third device, second information related to a second resource reserved by the third device, the second information including information related to a second transmission priority; determining the first resource and the second resource overlap in time and frequency; […]”), the processor comprising:
a signal generator configured to generate communication signals and radar signals (col. 20 lines 9-12, “The signal generators [1060] may generate radio signals from the mapped modulation symbols and the generated radio signals may be transmitted to other devices through each antenna.”),
a communication control unit configured to control a first time period and the first frequency range for transmitting communication signals generated by the signal generator, a radar control unit configured to control a second time period and the second frequency range for transmitting radar signals generated by the signal generator (col. 9 line 59 – col. 10 line 1, “Referring to (b) of FIG. 10 , in transmission modes 2/4, the UE may schedule resources on its own. More specifically, transmission mode 2 may be applied to a sidelink communication, and the UE may select a resource from a predetermined resource pool on its own and may then perform sidelink operations. Transmission mode 4 may be applied to a V2X communication, and the UE may carry out a sensing/SA decoding procedure, and so on, and select a resource within a selection window on its own and may then perform V2X operations.”; col. 26 lines 29-33, “The sensor unit [140b] may include a proximity sensor, an illumination sensor, an acceleration sensor, a magnetic sensor, a gyro sensor, an inertial sensor, an RGB sensor, an IR sensor, a fingerprint recognition sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a light sensor, a microphone and/or a radar.”; claim 1, “A method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second device, first information related to a first resource reserved by the second device, the first information including information related to a first transmission priority; receiving, from a third device, second information related to a second resource reserved by the third device, the second information including information related to a second transmission priority; determining the first resource and the second resource overlap in time and frequency; […]”; communications and radar may be separate resources with respective and overlapping timeslots and frequencies), and
a prioritization control unit connectable to the communication control unit and the radar control unit, the prioritization control unit configured to: receive the first time period and the first frequency range from the communication control unit, receive the second time period and the second frequency range from the radar control unit, determine if the first and second time periods at least partially overlap, determine if the first and second frequency ranges at least partially overlap, and prioritize transmission of communication signals or transmission of radar signals based on a pre-defined prioritization rule if the first and second time periods at least partially overlap and the first and second frequency ranges at least partially overlap (claim 1, “[…] determining the first resource and the second resource overlap in time and frequency; and transmitting conflict information through a physical sidelink channel, wherein based on the determination that the first resource and the second resource overlap in the time and the frequency, and based on that the second transmission priority is higher than the first transmission priority, the conflict information is transmitted to the second device, wherein, based on the determination that the first resource and the second resource overlap in the time and the frequency, and based on that the first transmission priority is higher than the second transmission priority, the conflict information is transmitted to the third device […]”).
Regarding claim 2, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1,
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is according to a 5G standard or a 6G standard (col. 15 lines 43-49, “Referring to FIG. 16 , a communication system [1] applied to the present disclosure includes wireless devices, Base Stations [BSs], and a network. Herein, the wireless devices represent devices performing communication using Radio Access Technology [RAT] [e.g., 5G New RAT (NR)) or Long-Term Evolution (LTE)] and may be referred to as communication/radio/5G devices.”; the pre-defined prioritization rule is according to a 5G standard as a result of all communication/radio activity using 5G standards).
Regarding claim 17, Kwak teaches an electronic device comprising the processor of claim 1 and
a radio transceiver configured to transmit radar and communication radio signals over the first and the second frequency ranges (col. 16 lines 60-64, “For example, the processor(s) [102] may process information within the memory(s) [104] to generate first information/signals and then transmit radio signals including the first information/signals through the transceiver(s) [106].”; claim 1, “A method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second device, first information related to a first resource reserved by the second device, the first information including information related to a first transmission priority; receiving, from a third device, second information related to a second resource reserved by the third device, the second information including information related to a second transmission priority; determining the first resource and the second resource overlap in time and frequency; […]”).
Regarding claim 18, Kwak teaches the electronic device of claim 17,
wherein the radio transceiver consists of a single radio transceiver, wherein the single radio transceiver is configured to transmit and/or receive both radar and communication radio signals (col. 16 lines 60-64, “For example, the processor(s) [102] may process information within the memory(s) [104] to generate first information/signals and then transmit radio signals including the first information/signals through the transceiver(s) [106].”; col. 20 lines 45-46, “The communication unit may include a communication circuit [112] and transceiver(s) [114].”), and
wherein the single radio transceiver is configured to receive the communication radio signals over a third frequency range (col. 5 lines 13-18, “Between different PHY layers, i.e., a PHY layer of a transmitter and a PHY layer of a receiver, data is transferred through the physical channel. The physical channel may be modulated by using an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing [OFDM] scheme and uses time and frequency as radio resource.”; 5G OFDM is known to rely on more than 3 subcarriers).
Regarding claim 19, Kwak teaches the electronic device of claim 17,
wherein the radio transceiver consists of a single radio transmitter, and wherein the single radio transmitter is configured to transmit both radar and communication radio signals (col. 16 lines 60-64, “For example, the processor(s) [102] may process information within the memory(s) [104] to generate first information/signals and then transmit radio signals including the first information/signals through the transceiver(s) [106].”; col. 20 lines 45-46, “The communication unit may include a communication circuit [112] and transceiver(s) [114].”).
Regarding claim 20, Kwak teaches the electronic device of claim 17,
wherein the electronic device is a smartphone (col. 15 line 43 – col. 16 line 1, “Referring to FIG. 16, a communication system (1) applied to the present disclosure includes wireless devices, Base Stations [BSs], and a network. Herein, the wireless devices represent devices performing communication using Radio Access Technology [RAT] [e.g., 5G New RAT (NR)] or Long-Term Evolution [LTE] and may be referred to as communication/radio/5G devices. The wireless devices may include, without being limited to […] an eXtended Reality [XR] device [100c], a hand-held device [100d] […]. The XR device may include […] a smartphone […] and so on. The hand-held device may include a smartphone […].”).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Petousis et al. (US 20180261020 A1), hereinafter Petousis.
Regarding claim 4, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the prioritization rule is based on previously transmitted radar and/or communication signals.
However, Petousis teaches
wherein the prioritization rule is based on previously transmitted radar and/or communication signals (para. 16, “The method can confer several benefits. First, the method optimizes use of the limited communication resources available to the computing system by dynamically prioritizing the data to be sent in real- or near-real time.”; para. 29, “The prioritization scheme can be determined automatically [e.g., trained on historical data priorities, such as for contexts with similar data parameters], […] or otherwise determined.”).
Kwak and Petousis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Petousis with the motivation of continually improving the efficacy of resource prioritization.
Claims 5-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sedarat et al. (US 11777835 B1), hereinafter Sedarat.
Regarding claim 5, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a type of data packet.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a type of data packet (col. 6 lines 13-23, “As previously explained, the communication network 102 may have limited available bandwidth for transmitting data. Accordingly, the vehicle networking system 100 is designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features. For example, the various nodes included in the communication network 102 may provide priority to sensor data used for providing automated driving to ensure that the computing device 106 facilitating the automated driving function is concurrently receiving sensor data captured from each sensor at a given time.”).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 6, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 5, but Kwak fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on whether the communication signals comprise one or more data packet of a first type.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on whether the communication signals comprise one or more data packet of a first type (col. 5 lines 43-60, “To facilitate communication with other computing devices 106, a computing device 106 includes a communication interface configured to receive a communication, such as a request, data, and the like, from another computing device 106 or sensor 104 in network communication with the computing device 106 and pass the communication along to an appropriate module running on the computing device 106. The communication interface also sends a communication to another computing device 106 in network communication with the computing device 106. The sensors 104 may be any type of sensors used to capture data. For example, the sensors 104 may include engine speed sensors, fuel temperature sensors, voltage sensors, pressure sensors, radar sensors, light detection and ranging [LIDAR] sensors, imaging sensors [e.g., camera, video camera], etc. The sensors 104 capture data describing performance of a vehicle and its surroundings and provide the captured data to one or more of the computing devices 106.”; col. 6 lines 13-23, “As previously explained, the communication network 102 may have limited available bandwidth for transmitting data. Accordingly, the vehicle networking system 100 is designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features. For example, the various nodes included in the communication network 102 may provide priority to sensor data used for providing automated driving to ensure that the computing device 106 facilitating the automated driving function is concurrently receiving sensor data captured from each sensor at a given time.”; Examiner is construing non-sensor data transmitted and received to be communication data, which may be prioritized on the basis of data packet type).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 7, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 6, but Kwak fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that if the communication signals comprise one or more data packet of a first type, transmission of communication signals will be prioritized over transmission of radar signals.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that if the communication signals comprise one or more data packet of a first type, transmission of communication signals will be prioritized over transmission of radar signals (col. 5 lines 43-60, “To facilitate communication with other computing devices 106, a computing device 106 includes a communication interface configured to receive a communication, such as a request, data, and the like, from another computing device 106 or sensor 104 in network communication with the computing device 106 and pass the communication along to an appropriate module running on the computing device 106. The communication interface also sends a communication to another computing device 106 in network communication with the computing device 106. The sensors 104 may be any type of sensors used to capture data. For example, the sensors 104 may include engine speed sensors, fuel temperature sensors, voltage sensors, pressure sensors, radar sensors, light detection and ranging [LIDAR] sensors, imaging sensors [e.g., camera, video camera], etc. The sensors 104 capture data describing performance of a vehicle and its surroundings and provide the captured data to one or more of the computing devices 106.”; col. 6 lines 13-23, “As previously explained, the communication network 102 may have limited available bandwidth for transmitting data. Accordingly, the vehicle networking system 100 is designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features. For example, the various nodes included in the communication network 102 may provide priority to sensor data used for providing automated driving to ensure that the computing device 106 facilitating the automated driving function is concurrently receiving sensor data captured from each sensor at a given time.”; Examiner is construing data transmitted by another computing device to be communication data, which may be prioritized on the basis of data packet type).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 8, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kwak fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule further states that if the communication signals do not comprise one or more data packet of a first type, transmission of radar signals will be prioritized over transmission of communication signals.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule further states that if the communication signals do not comprise one or more data packet of a first type, transmission of radar signals will be prioritized over transmission of communication signals (col. 5 lines 43-60, “To facilitate communication with other computing devices 106, a computing device 106 includes a communication interface configured to receive a communication, such as a request, data, and the like, from another computing device 106 or sensor 104 in network communication with the computing device 106 and pass the communication along to an appropriate module running on the computing device 106. The communication interface also sends a communication to another computing device 106 in network communication with the computing device 106. The sensors 104 may be any type of sensors used to capture data. For example, the sensors 104 may include engine speed sensors, fuel temperature sensors, voltage sensors, pressure sensors, radar sensors, light detection and ranging [LIDAR] sensors, imaging sensors [e.g., camera, video camera], etc. The sensors 104 capture data describing performance of a vehicle and its surroundings and provide the captured data to one or more of the computing devices 106.”; col. 6 lines 13-17, “As previously explained, the communication network 102 may have limited available bandwidth for transmitting data. Accordingly, the vehicle networking system 100 is designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features.”; in the possibility that sensor-dependent actions are prioritized and the only sensor type is radar, radar signal transmission will be prioritized on the basis of data packet type).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 10, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kwak fails to teach
wherein the data packet of the first type is a low latency constraints data packet.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the data packet of the first type is a low latency constraints data packet (col. 2 lines 48-60, “In vehicle networking systems, available bandwidth is limited because vehicles are equipped with limited wiring for transmitting data between computers, sensors, actuators, etc., located within the vehicle. Accordingly, vehicle networking systems include network features that are designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features. For example, various functions in time-sensitive networking [TSN] standards [e.g. IEEE 802.1] are designed to guarantee an upper limit in the latency of packet transmission in specific flows for pairs of source and destination nodes in an Ethernet network and provide the required quality of service [QoS] in an automotive network environment.”).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service and reducing latency.
Regarding claim 11, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kwak fails to teach
wherein the data packet of the first type is a low latency constraints data packet or a retransmission data packet.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the data packet of the first type is a low latency constraints data packet or a retransmission data packet (col. 2 lines 48-60, “In vehicle networking systems, available bandwidth is limited because vehicles are equipped with limited wiring for transmitting data between computers, sensors, actuators, etc., located within the vehicle. Accordingly, vehicle networking systems include network features that are designed to prioritize transmission of certain types of data packets to ensure optimal performance of mission critical features. For example, various functions in time-sensitive networking [TSN] standards [e.g. IEEE 802.1] are designed to guarantee an upper limit in the latency of packet transmission in specific flows for pairs of source and destination nodes in an Ethernet network and provide the required quality of service [QoS] in an automotive network environment.”).
Kwak and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service and reducing latency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sedarat and further in view of Diab et al. (US 20120173900 A1), hereinafter Diab.
Regarding claim 9, Kwak in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but fails to teach
wherein the data packet of the first type is a retransmission data packet.
However, Diab teaches
wherein the data packet of the first type is a retransmission data packet (para. 276, “For both incoming and outgoing top priority packets, the local network manager function 738 monitors the activity of the top priority packet modules 754-756 and adjusts the queues within the buffers accordingly such that packets are not lost. For example, if a packet is being outputted via the network buffer 732 when an incoming top priority packet is received, the local network manager function 738 records the interruption of the outputting of the packet and facilitates retransmission of the packet after the incoming top priority packet has been received and provided to the appropriate vehicle device 750.”).
Kwak, Sedarat, and Diab are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak in view of Sedarat with the teachings of Diab with the motivation of faster recovery from errors and reducing latency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Battles et al. (US 20190049997 A1), hereinafter Battles.
Regarding claim 12, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a random number.
However, Battles teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a random number (para. 133, “As an example, if two autonomous vehicles are both operating in uncoupled strategy modes and are each waiting for the other vehicle to proceed, randomly generated portions of visual identifiers, audio signals, or emitted signals may be used by the two vehicles to more quickly resolve such a stalemate or conflict by randomly assigning priority to one of the vehicles. Such randomly generated portions of visual identifiers, audio signals, or emitted signals may also be used to more quickly resolve potential conflicts that may occur with other combinations of strategy modes and/or actions.”; computing a random selection implicitly involves generating at least one random value).
Kwak and Battles are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Battles with the motivation of being able to select and prioritize one of multiple resources with otherwise equal computed priority values.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Jeon et al. (US 20230076874 A1), hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding claim 13, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that transmission of communication signals is always prioritized over transmission of radar signals.
However, Jeon teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that transmission of communication signals is always prioritized over transmission of radar signals (para. 423, “In one realization, when a UE's radar sensing transmission is simultaneous or overlapping in time with a UL/SL transmission by the UE, and when a same power amplifier/RF chain is shared for communication and sensing [for example, for both the communication module and the radar sensing module] or when a total transmission power level for the UE is upper bounded based on regulatory requirements, the UE needs to perform power sharing between communication and sensing to meet the total power limit. In such cases, the UE can do power scaling (including zero power allocation, resulting in dropping) to the communication or sensing, possibly based on a priority order. In one example, an UL/SL communication is always prioritized over radar sensing. In another example, a radar sensing transmission is always prioritized over communication. In yet another example, a priority level for radar sensing versus communication is based on different priority levels for different UL/SL reference signals or channels.”).
Kwak and Jeon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Jeon with the motivation of ensuring high communication performance.
Regarding claim 15, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that transmission of radar signals is always prioritized over transmission of communication signals.
However, Jeon teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that transmission of radar signals is always prioritized over transmission of communication signals (para. 423, “In one realization, when a UE's radar sensing transmission is simultaneous or overlapping in time with a UL/SL transmission by the UE, and when a same power amplifier/RF chain is shared for communication and sensing [for example, for both the communication module and the radar sensing module] or when a total transmission power level for the UE is upper bounded based on regulatory requirements, the UE needs to perform power sharing between communication and sensing to meet the total power limit. In such cases, the UE can do power scaling (including zero power allocation, resulting in dropping) to the communication or sensing, possibly based on a priority order. In one example, an UL/SL communication is always prioritized over radar sensing. In another example, a radar sensing transmission is always prioritized over communication. In yet another example, a priority level for radar sensing versus communication is based on different priority levels for different UL/SL reference signals or channels.”).
Kwak and Jeon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Jeon with the motivation of ensuring high radar data rates.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Jovancevic (US 9699663 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre- defined prioritization rule states that transmission of radar signals is prioritized over transmission of communication signals for a time period after a first radar signal has been transmitted.
However, Jovancevic teaches
wherein the pre- defined prioritization rule states that transmission of radar signals is prioritized over transmission of communication signals for a time period after a first radar signal has been transmitted (col. 3 lines 51-60, “Protection zones: also referred to as protection/sharing zones and also referred to as geographic protection zones. Protection Zones are in geographical areas in which CBSD units are not allowed to provide communications to the wireless end users after radar signals have been detected. The CBSD units within geographic protection zones are prevented from providing communication services to the PA and GA wireless users for as long as radar signals are being detected, and potentially for a certain period of time after radar emissions cease to be detected.”; col. 4 lines 13-25, “The spectrum sharing system [SSS] is a network system that provides Radio Frequency [RF] wireless communication for mobile, fixed wireless devices and radar within licensed service in the spectrum previously allocated for radar use. Via an internal mechanism, the SSS has the ability to determine which CBSD units would cause interference to the incumbent radar system. When the CBSD units, located within a geographic area, have been identified by the SSS as potential interferers to radar systems, these CBSD units would be grouped together and SSS would formulate protection zone[s] which would enclose identified CBSD device group[s]. The CBSD units within the protection zone could be turned on and off via commands issued by the SSS.”; within the SSS network and in a defined geographical area, only radar signal transmission is allowed for a time period after transmission and detection of radar signals within the network).
Kwak and Jovancevic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Jovancevic with the motivation of ensuring that high radar data rates persist for some amount of time.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Wang et al. (US 20240205886 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Kwak teaches the processor of claim 1,
wherein the radar control unit is further configured to control the second time period and the second frequency range for receiving radar signals, but fails to teach
wherein the communication control unit is further configured to control a third time period and a third frequency range for receiving communication signals,
wherein the prioritization control unit is further configured to receive the third time period and the third frequency range from the communication control unit, and
wherein the prioritization control unit is configured to determine if any of the first, second, and third time periods at least partially overlap, determine if any of the first, second, and third frequency ranges at least partially overlap, and
prioritize transmission of communication signals, transmission of radar signals, reception of communication signals or reception of radar signals based on one or more pre-defined prioritization rules if any of the first, second, and third time periods at least partially overlap and a corresponding first, second, or third frequency range at least partially overlap.
However, Wang teaches
wherein the communication control unit is further configured to control a third time period and a third frequency range for receiving communication signals, wherein the prioritization control unit is further configured to receive the third time period and the third frequency range from the communication control unit, and wherein the prioritization control unit is configured to determine if any of the first, second, and third time periods at least partially overlap, determine if any of the first, second, and third frequency ranges at least partially overlap, and prioritize transmission of communication signals, transmission of radar signals, reception of communication signals or reception of radar signals based on one or more pre-defined prioritization rules if any of the first, second, and third time periods at least partially overlap and a corresponding first, second, or third frequency range at least partially overlap (para. 74, “According to a sixth aspect, a communication apparatus is provided, including a processing unit and a communication unit. The communication unit is configured to receive first sidelink control information and second sidelink control information, where the first sidelink control information is control information used for E-UTRA radio access, and the second sidelink control information is control information used for NR radio access. The first sidelink control information includes a first priority, and the second sidelink control information includes a third priority. The processing unit configured to: determine a threshold of first RSRP based on the first priority; determine a first available time-frequency resource based on the threshold of the first RSRP; determine a threshold of second RSRP based on the third priority; and determine a second available time-frequency resource based on the threshold of the second RSRP. A third available time-frequency resource is an intersection of the first available time-frequency resource and the second available time-frequency resource. The third available time-frequency resource is used to send third sidelink control information and first data information, where the third sidelink control information is the control information used for the NR radio access, and the first data information is data information used for the NR radio access.”; Examiner is construing control information as communications).
Kwak and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle radar and communication resource prioritization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwak with the teachings of Wang with the motivation of further decreasing the risk of interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648