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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht(US20210239822A1) in view of Valdes(US11789116B2).
Regarding claim 1, Vollbracht discloses
A method for calibrating and operating a radar transceiver used in a vehicle radar system that is mounted to a vehicle (“The radar device may be mounted to a vehicle.” [0057] & “The switching device may be configured to selectively couple either the first antenna element or the second antenna element to the common signal port” [0087]) , where the radar transceiver comprises a controllable transmitter antenna arrangement and a receiver antenna arrangement (“a radar circuit for transceiving antenna signals “ [0100]), where the method comprises the steps of; generating and transmitting a transmitted radar signal (“The radar circuit may comprise a signal generator for generating the antenna signals ”[0025]); receiving a reflected radar signal that corresponds to the transmitted radar signal being reflected by one or more target objects (“ it may transduce the antenna signals by receiving electromagnetic radiation scattered back by the target object ”[0038]); wherein, controlling the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate a first antenna radiation pattern for the transmitted radar signal (“the additional first antenna position is defined by an additional first phase center of an additional first radiation pattern” [0095]); and, controlling the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate a plurality of second antenna radiation patterns for the transmitted radar signal (“the additional second antenna position is defined by an additional second phase center of an additional second radiation pattern” [0095]); […] and controlling the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate the chosen second antenna radiation pattern and the first antenna radiation pattern in an alternating manner (“The antenna device 200 may then alternately transduce either the first signal portions 11, 16, 21, 26 or the second signal portions 12, 17, 22, 27 in a time multiplexed manner” [0166]).
Vollbracht does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction. Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. Valdes discloses, in a predetermined angular direction with respect to predefined reference direction (“ a reflector is placed at a different pre-defined distance for each direction to be calibrated” [Col.7, ll.22-23]), determining which second antenna radiation pattern provides a largest amplitude difference of the received reflected signal between the first antenna radiation pattern (“ the cycling through the plurality of phase control settings to determine the optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude at a distance corresponding to the predetermined distance “ [Col.9, ll.20-24]) and the second antenna radiation patterns and choosing the chosen second antenna radiation pattern providing the largest amplitude difference (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum,” [Col.5, ll. 58-59]).
Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction so as to gain the advantage of reducing calibration time [Col.2, ll.31, Valdes]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the method further comprises the step of using the radar signal in the form of frequency modulated continuous wave, ramps, where, for each radar cycle (“The radar device may therefore be configured as a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW)” [0041]), the method comprises the steps of: transmitting the radar signal using the first antenna radiation pattern for a first plurality of the frequency modulated continuous wave ramps (“The frequency 30 of the radar signals 10, 15 is repeatedly cycled through the second frequency band 34 and the first frequency band 31” [0156]); and transmitting the radar signal using the second antenna radiation pattern for a second plurality of the frequency modulated continuous wave ramps(FIG.3, Part.31 & “Subsequently, this cycle or burst is repeated” [0156])), where each radar cycle has a duration of a cycle time (FIG.3, Parts. 31 &34).
Regarding claim 3, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Vollbracht discloses wherein, one of a first plurality of frequency modulated continuous wave ramps and a second plurality of frequency modulated continuous wave ramps follow after the other (FIG.3, Steps.31 & 34).
Regarding claim 4, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Vollbracht discloses wherein, during one or more radar cycles, a chirp signal comprises repeating cycles of the first plurality of frequency ramps and the second plurality of frequency ramps ( “Subsequently, this cycle or burst is repeated” [0156]).
Regarding claim 5, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Vollbracht discloses, wherein each second antenna radiation pattern is used during a certain time interval when transmitting the radar signal (“The antenna device 200 may then alternately transduce either the first signal portions 11, 16, 21, 26 or the second signal portions 12, 17, 22, 27 in a time multiplexed manner” [0166]).
Regarding claim 6, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Vollbracht does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction. Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. Valdes discloses wherein, the determining of which second antenna radiation pattern that provides the largest amplitude difference between the first antenna radiation pattern and the second antenna radiation patterns (“ the cycling through the plurality of phase control settings to determine the optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude at a distance corresponding to the predetermined distance “ [Col.9, ll.20-24]) (“for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude “ [Col.9, ll.22-23]); comparing amplitudes of received reflected radar signals that correspond to when the first antenna radiation pattern is used for the transmitted radar signal with amplitudes of received reflected radar signals that correspond to when second antenna radiation patterns are used for the transmitted radar signa (“a phase and amplitude control block configured to cycle through a plurality of phase control settings to determine an optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle “ [Col.1, ll.56-59])l; and determining which second antenna radiation pattern is used when a difference between the compared amplitudes is maximal (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum” [Col.5, ll.58-59]).
Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction so as to gain the advantage of reducing calibration time [Col.2, ll.31, Valdes]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Vollbracht discloses
A vehicle radar system comprising, a control unit and a radar transceiver that in turn comprises a controllable transmitter antenna arrangement and a receiver antenna arrangement (“The radar circuit is configured to handle or transceive the antenna signals.” [0026]), where the control unit is adapted to control the radar transceiver to; generate and transmit a transmitted radar signal (“The signal generator may be configured to generate the antenna signals” [0027]), and receive a reflected radar signal that corresponds to the transmitted radar signal being reflected by one or more target objects (“ it may transduce the antenna signals by receiving electromagnetic radiation scattered back by the target object ”[0038]), wherein, the control unit is adapted to; control the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate a first antenna radiation pattern for the transmitted radar signal (“the additional first antenna position is defined by an additional first phase center of an additional first radiation pattern” [0095]), control the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate a plurality of second antenna radiation patterns for the transmitted radar signal (“the additional second antenna position is defined by an additional second phase center of an additional second radiation pattern” [0095]), […]and to control the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate the chosen second antenna radiation pattern and the first antenna radiation pattern in an alternating manner(“The antenna device 200 may then alternately transduce either the first signal portions 11, 16, 21, 26 or the second signal portions 12, 17, 22, 27 in a time multiplexed manner” [0166]).
Vollbracht does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction. Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. Valdes discloses, in a predetermined angular direction with respect to a predefined reference direction (“ a reflector is placed at a different pre-defined distance for each direction to be calibrated” [Col.7, ll.22-23]), to determine which second antenna radiation pattern that provides the largest amplitude difference between the first antenna radiation pattern and the second antenna radiation patterns (“ the cycling through the plurality of phase control settings to determine the optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude at a distance corresponding to the predetermined distance “ [Col.9, ll.20-24]) […], and to choose the chosen second antenna radiation pattern (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum,” [Col.5, ll. 58-59]).
Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction so as to gain the advantage of reducing calibration time [Col.2, ll.31, Valdes]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the vehicle radar transceiver is arranged to generate and transmit the radar signals in the form of frequency modulated continuous wave signals (“The radar device may therefore be configured as a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW)” [0041]), where the control unit is adapted to control the radar transceiver to transmit the radar signal using the first antenna radiation pattern for a first plurality of frequency modulated continuous wave ramps (“The frequency 30 of the radar signals 10, 15 is repeatedly cycled through the second frequency band 34 and the first frequency band 31” [0156]), and to transmit the transmitted radar signal using the second antenna radiation pattern for a second plurality of frequency modulated continuous wave ramps (FIG.3, Part.31 & “Subsequently, this cycle or burst is repeated” [0156])), where each radar cycle has a duration of a cycle time (FIG.3, Parts. 31 &34).
Regarding claim 9, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Vollbracht discloses wherein, one of a first plurality of the frequency modulated continuous wave ramps and a second plurality of the frequency modulated continuous wave ramps follow after the other (FIG.3, Steps.31 & 34).
Regarding claim 10, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Vollbracht discloses wherein, during one or more radar cycles, the transmitted radar signal comprises repeating cycles of the first plurality of frequency ramps and the second plurality of frequency ramps (“Subsequently, this cycle or burst is repeated” [0156])).
Regarding claim 11, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the control unit is adapted to control the transmitter antenna arrangement to generate each of the second antenna radiation patterns during a certain time interval when transmitting the radar signal (“The antenna device 200 may then alternately transduce either the first signal portions 11, 16, 21, 26 or the second signal portions 12, 17, 22, 27 in a time multiplexed manner” [0166]).
Regarding claim 12, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction. Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. Valdes discloses wherein, the control unit is adapted to determine which of the second antenna radiation patterns provides the largest amplitude difference between the first antenna radiation pattern and the second antenna radiation patterns (“ the cycling through the plurality of phase control settings to determine the optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude at a distance corresponding to the predetermined distance “ [Col.9, ll.20-24]) by further being adapted to ;measure amplitudes of received reflected radar signals in the predetermined angular direction(“for the predetermined angle includes determining a maximum reflection amplitude “ [Col.9, ll.22-23]), compare amplitudes of the received reflected radar signals that correspond to when the first antenna radiation pattern is used for the transmitted radar signal with amplitudes of received reflected radar signals that correspond to when second antenna radiation patterns are used for the transmitted radar signal (“a phase and amplitude control block configured to cycle through a plurality of phase control settings to determine an optimum phase control setting for the predetermined angle “ [Col.1, ll.56-59]), and to determine which second antenna radiation pattern is used when a difference between the compared amplitudes is maximal (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum” [Col.5, ll.58-59]).
Valdes teaches in the same field of radar calibration and operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of identifying a largest amplitude difference in the received signal for a predetermined direction so as to gain the advantage of reducing calibration time [Col.2, ll.31, Valdes]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the vehicle radar system comprises at least one transmitter unit (“a radar circuit for transceiving antenna signals “ [0100]), where the transmitter antenna arrangement comprises at least two first transmitter antenna columns, each of the transmitter antenna columns comprising a plurality of antenna elements (“The first antenna elements 213 of the first set 315 and the second antenna elements 223 of the second set 317” [0225]), and where the transmitter unit is adapted to transmit via the transmitter antenna columns simultaneously (“ it may be configured to simultaneously activate the individual sets of antennas.” [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the transmitter unit is adapted to configure individual phase shifts (“The separability parameters may, for example, employ phase shift keying” [0023]) and power back-off values (“he radar circuit is able to vary the individual signal components of the radar signal that are fed to individual transmit antennas independently from each other, for example in […] amplitude” [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Vollbracht discloses a vehicle comprising the vehicle radar system according to any one of the claims claim 7 (“The radar device may be mounted to a vehicle.” [0057]).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Solomko(US20150200437A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0017] “The directivity of the impedance measurement device may be tuned by adjusting a phase and amplitude response.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646