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 amendments filed May 28, 2026 have been filed. Claims 1-2, 4-20, and 25 remain pending in this application. Claims 1 and 25 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed May 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kellum et al. (US 20180095161 A1).
Applicant argues that Jovancevic, Battles, and Jeon are inapplicable to the claimed subject matter. In response, Examiner has rejected claim 12 in view of Guo et al. (US 20180084429 A1), and rejected claims 13-15 over Kellum et al. Jovancevic, Battles, and Jeon are no longer relied on to reject the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes multiple claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are
nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because
the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting
sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a
structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“communication control unit”, recited in claims 1, 16, and 25,
“radar control unit”, recited in claims 1, 16, and 25, and
“prioritization control unit”, recited in claims 1, 16, and 25.
Structural and functional support for these limitations is found on page 12 line 19 – page 14 line 22.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 13-15, 17-19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kellum et al. (US 20180095161 A1), hereinafter Kellum.
Regarding claim 1, Kellum teaches
a processor for performing radar and communication operations (para. 37, “In some embodiments, communications manager 324, radar manager 322 and waveform manager 318 include software and/or firmware instructions executed on a special purpose processor [such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)] or a general purposed processor/controller with associated known circuitry, such as memory and I/O circuits.”; Fig. 5, processor 542), connectable to a radio transceiver capable of transmitting radar and communication radio signals over at least a first and a second frequency range (see paras. 4 and 47-48 for evidence of a transceiver transmitting radar and communication signals; para. 12, “The method includes: receiving a waveform request for transmitting a first signal with a first frequency and a first power level and a second signal with a second frequency and a second power level, wherein the first frequency is higher than the second frequency and the first power level is higher than the second power level; […]”), the processor comprising:
a signal generator configured to generate communication signals and radar signals, the radar signals being radio detection and ranging signals or sensing signals for determining distance, angle, velocity, or sensing of one or more objects (para. 47, “Similarly, a communication waveform 531, for example, a LTE waveform, is received by one or more of the plurality of antenna elements 532 a-532 n. Both signals 530 and 531 are input to a beam forming circuit 533. The beam forming circuit 533 may be controlled by a processor and associated circuitry 542 [e.g., memory, input/output, etc.]. The beam forming circuit 533 performs various signal processing and waveform generations tasks, controlled by the processor 542. In some embodiments, the beam forming circuit 533 drives a Digital-to-Analog Convertor [DACs] to convert the digital communication waveform 531 to an analog signal and then power amplify the two signals, which are then filtered by a bandpass filter 532.”; Examiner is construing the beam forming circuit 533 as a signal generator as claimed),
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 (para. 33, “The communications manager 324 sends commands and data to a waveform manager 318 to execute a given communications mode request, such as what waveform to transmit, the duration of the transmission, the repeat rate of the transmission, and other timing and waveform parameters.”; see para. 26 for evidence that signal resources are defined by a frequency spectrum),
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 (para. 34, “A radar manager 322 sends radar mode commands describing the desired waveform to be generated to a waveform manager 318, such as the number of coherent processing intervals or radar frames to run, the pulse repetition interval of the waveforms, the actual waveform to be generated, the frequency and other waveform and timeline parameters to generate the radar mode.”; see para. 26 for evidence that signal resources are defined by a frequency spectrum), and
a prioritization control unit (para. 43, “For example, when an airborne platform wishes to communicate through an LTE advanced protocol with a friendly LTE-A node or LTE-A base station and also wishes to execute an air-to-ground radar mode, such as a ground moving target indicator [GMTI] mode, radar and communication mode requests are made, in some circumstances, simultaneously. A waveform manager [described above] executes a waveform management process to arbitrate and adjusts the radar and LTE waveform parameters and determines when to transmit the LTE-A packets and when to transmit the radar pulses.”; Examiner is construing the waveform manager 318 of Kellum as a prioritization control unit) configured to:
receive the first time period and the first frequency range from the communication control unit (para. 33, “The communications manager 324 sends commands and data to a waveform manager 318 to execute a given communications mode request, such as what waveform to transmit, the duration of the transmission, the repeat rate of the transmission, and other timing and waveform parameters.”; see para. 43 for evidence that frequency is part of the waveform parameters received),
receive the second time period and the second frequency range from the radar control unit (para. 34, “A radar manager 322 sends radar mode commands describing the desired waveform to be generated to a waveform manager 318, such as the number of coherent processing intervals or radar frames to run, the pulse repetition interval of the waveforms, the actual waveform to be generated, the frequency and other waveform and timeline parameters to generate the radar mode.”),
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 a transmission of the communication signals controlled by the communication control unit or a transmission of the radar signals controlled by the radar control unit 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, wherein the processor is configured to cause the prioritized generate communication or radar signals to be provided to the radio transceiver for transmission (para. 43, “For example, when an airborne platform wishes to communicate through an LTE advanced protocol with a friendly LTE-A node or LTE-A base station and also wishes to execute an air-to-ground radar mode, such as a ground moving target indicator [GMTI] mode, radar and communication mode requests are made, in some circumstances, simultaneously. A waveform manager [described above] executes a waveform management process to arbitrate and adjusts the radar and LTE waveform parameters and determines when to transmit the LTE-A packets and when to transmit the radar pulses. For example, suppose a user or the system sets the priority of the system to LTE prioritized mode. As requests for waveforms come in, all requests are granted until a conflict is detected where two or more requests compete to transmit non-synergistic waveforms [which cannot be combined into a single transmission] that require the same frequency and time slot.”; if frequencies and time slots are the same, they wholly overlap; a radar or LTE communication prioritized mode constitutes a pre-defined prioritization rule).
Regarding claim 13, Kellum teaches the processor of claim 1,
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule states that transmission of communication signals is always prioritized over transmission of radar signals (see para. 35 for LTE [communications] prioritized mode).
Regarding claim 14, Kellum teaches the processor of claim 1,
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 (para 43, “A waveform manager (described above) executes a waveform management process to arbitrate and adjusts the radar and LTE waveform parameters and determines when to transmit the LTE-A packets and when to transmit the radar pulses. For example, suppose a user or the system sets the priority of the system to LTE prioritized mode. As requests for waveforms come in, all requests are granted until a conflict is detected where two or more requests compete to transmit non-synergistic waveforms [which cannot be combined into a single transmission] that require the same frequency and time slot.”; in radar prioritized mode, radar signals are implicitly prioritized over communication signals for transmission for some amount of time).
Regarding claim 15, Kellum 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 (see para. 35 for radar prioritized mode).
Regarding claim 17, Kellum teaches an electronic device (Fig. 5, Examiner is construing the antenna array of Fig. 5 as an electronic device comprising a processor 542) 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 (see paras. 4 and 47-48 for evidence of a radio transceiver configured to transmit radar and communication signals).
Regarding claim 18, Kellum 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 (see paras. 4 and 47-48 for evidence of a radio transceiver configured to transmit radar and communication signals), and
wherein the single radio transceiver is configured to receive the communication radio signals over a third frequency range (para. 29, “An exemplary plot 202 of the LTE waveform 204 and the radar waveform 206 is shown over power, frequency and time/symbol. As shown, the LTE waveform 204 [denoted as the OFDM Waveform] operates at lower frequencies and lower power levels than the radar waveform 206.”; OFDM is known to make use of several active subcarriers).
Regarding claim 19, Kellum 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 (see paras. 4 and 47-48 for evidence of a radio transceiver configured to transmit radar and communication signals).
Regarding claim 25, Kellum teaches
a prioritization control unit of a processor, the processor comprising a signal generator configured to generate communication signals and radar signals, the radar signals being radio detection and ranging signal or sensing signals for determining distance, angle, velocity, or sensing of one or more objects, the prioritization control unit being connectable to a communication control unit and a radar control unit of the processor (para. 37, “In some embodiments, communications manager 324, radar manager 322 and waveform manager 318 include software and/or firmware instructions executed on a special purpose processor [such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)] or a general purposed processor/controller with associated known circuitry, such as memory and I/O circuits.”; Fig. 5, processor 542; para. 43, “For example, when an airborne platform wishes to communicate through an LTE advanced protocol with a friendly LTE-A node or LTE-A base station and also wishes to execute an air-to-ground radar mode, such as a ground moving target indicator [GMTI] mode, radar and communication mode requests are made, in some circumstances, simultaneously. A waveform manager [described above] executes a waveform management process to arbitrate and adjusts the radar and LTE waveform parameters and determines when to transmit the LTE-A packets and when to transmit the radar pulses.”; Examiner is construing the waveform manager 318 of Kellum as a prioritization control unit), the prioritization control unit being configured to:
receive a first time period and a first frequency range from the communication control unit (para. 33, “The communications manager 324 sends commands and data to a waveform manager 318 to execute a given communications mode request, such as what waveform to transmit, the duration of the transmission, the repeat rate of the transmission, and other timing and waveform parameters.”; see para. 43 for evidence that frequency is part of the waveform parameters received),
receive a second time period and a second frequency range from the radar control unit (para. 34, “A radar manager 322 sends radar mode commands describing the desired waveform to be generated to a waveform manager 318, such as the number of coherent processing intervals or radar frames to run, the pulse repetition interval of the waveforms, the actual waveform to be generated, the frequency and other waveform and timeline parameters to generate the radar mode.”),
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 a transmission of the communication signals controlled by the communication control unit or a transmission of the radar signals controlled by the radar control unit 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, wherein the processor is configured to cause the prioritized generated communication or radar signals to be provided to a radio transceiver for transmission (para. 43, “For example, when an airborne platform wishes to communicate through an LTE advanced protocol with a friendly LTE-A node or LTE-A base station and also wishes to execute an air-to-ground radar mode, such as a ground moving target indicator [GMTI] mode, radar and communication mode requests are made, in some circumstances, simultaneously. A waveform manager [described above] executes a waveform management process to arbitrate and adjusts the radar and LTE waveform parameters and determines when to transmit the LTE-A packets and when to transmit the radar pulses. For example, suppose a user or the system sets the priority of the system to LTE prioritized mode. As requests for waveforms come in, all requests are granted until a conflict is detected where two or more requests compete to transmit non-synergistic waveforms [which cannot be combined into a single transmission] that require the same frequency and time slot.”; see para. 26 for evidence that signal resources are defined by a frequency spectrum; if frequencies and time slots are the same, they wholly overlap; a radar or LTE communication prioritized mode constitutes a pre-defined prioritization rule).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum in view of Herbertsson et al. (US 2023040147 A1), hereinafter Herbertsson.
Regarding claim 2, Kellum teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is according to a 5G standard or a 6G standard.
However, Herbertsson teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is according to a 5G standard or a 6G standard (see paras. 85-87 for evidence of a pre-defined prioritization rule and para. 61 for evidence that Herbertsson’s radar and communications systems use a 5G network).
Kellum and Herbertsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Herbertsson with the motivation that 5G offers higher data speeds and capacity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum in view of Petousis et al. (US 20180261020 A1), hereinafter Petousis.
Regarding claim 4, Kellum 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.”).
Kellum and Petousis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum 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 Kellum in view of Sedarat et al. (US 11777835 B1), hereinafter Sedarat.
Regarding claim 5, Kellum 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.”).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 6, Kellum in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 5, but Kellum 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).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 7, Kellum in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 6, but Kellum 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).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 8, Kellum in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kellum 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).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service.
Regarding claim 10, Kellum in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kellum 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.”).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service and reducing latency.
Regarding claim 11, Kellum in view of Sedarat teaches the processor of claim 7, but Kellum 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.”).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving quality of service and reducing latency.
Regarding claim 20, Kellum teaches the electronic device of claim 17, but fails to teach
wherein the electronic device is a smartphone.
However, Sedarat teaches
wherein the electronic device is a smartphone (col. 21 lines 45-56, “The machine may, for example, be a personal computer [PC], a PDA, a cellular telephone, a smart phone [e.g., iPhone®], […] or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine.”).
Kellum and Sedarat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Sedarat with the motivation of improving communication efficiency for users of smartphones, who greatly outnumber users of other communications devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum in view of Sedarat and further in view of Diab et al. (US 20120173900 A1), hereinafter Diab.
Regarding claim 9, Kellum 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.”).
Kellum, Sedarat, and Diab are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum 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 Kellum in view of Guo et al. (US 20180084429 A1), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 12, Kellum teaches the processor of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a random number.
However, Guo teaches
wherein the pre-defined prioritization rule is based on a random number (para. 116, “The selecting unit 606 may be configured to select resources to be used from the allocated resources according to a service quality requirement. Specifically, the selecting unit 606 may be configured to randomly select resources to be used from the set of the allocated resources according to a QoS requirement, or to sequentially select resources to be used from the sequence of the allocated resources.”; see para. 114 for evidence that radar resources and communication resources may each be allocated).
Kellum and Guo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum with the teachings of Guo with the motivation of simplifying computation of radar-communications resource prioritization.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum in view of Wang et al. (US 20240205886 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Kellum 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 (para. 34, “A radar manager 322 sends radar mode commands describing the desired waveform to be generated to a waveform manager 318, such as the number of coherent processing intervals or radar frames to run, the pulse repetition interval of the waveforms, the actual waveform to be generated, the frequency and other waveform and timeline parameters to generate the radar mode.”; Examiner is construing a single defined frequency as a range with one value), 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 constituting communications).
Kellum and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar and communication resource scheduling. 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 Kellum 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
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights