DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on Vollbracht as modified by Valdes, the Applicant purports that the prior art fails to disclose “(i) a baseline ‘first antenna radiation pattern’ used as a fixed comparator against plural candidate ‘second antenna radiation patterns’” and “(ii) selecting based on a difference between patterns (as claimed) rather than Valdes's absolute max/min amplitude for a single iterated setting.“ The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to argument (i), Figure 4 of Valdes discloses the steps of generating a plurality of antenna patterns, recording respective amplitudes, and comparing the collected amplitudes to identify the optimum pattern setting. Valdes clarifies in [Col.8, Par.7] that the step of comparison is preformed iteratively in a cyclical manner. As the process of comparison is cyclical, each individual candidate pattern is compared against a “fixed comparator.” Valdes discloses a baseline used as a fixed comparator against plural candidate ‘second antenna radiation patterns.’ It is noted however that Valdes was not applied alone to reject claim 1. As previously indicated in the nonfinal rejection, Vollbracht discloses the use of a first and second radiation pattern. Valdes is particularly relied upon to teach the claimed “determining which second antenna radiation pattern provides a largest amplitude difference of the received reflected signal.” The Examiner maintains that the modification of Vollbracht with Valdes makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the process selecting a second signal pattern by comparing amplitude difference in candidate patterns with a “first antenna radiation pattern.”
With respect to argument (i), [Col.4, ll.55-58] of Valdes discloses “if the calibration test set-up does not have another reflector at the same distance, all that is required is to sweep through the potential values to determine the maximum amplitude.” Identifying a radiation pattern with the greatest amplitude in plurality of antenna patterns requires considering differences between said patterns. Explained in greater detail above, the step of comparison is performed in a cyclical manner. As the process is cyclical, the pattern with the greatest amplitude also has the greatest relative difference in amplitude among the plural candidates. Valdes discloses “selecting based on a difference between patterns.“ Additionally, the Applicant alleges that “difference between patterns” is claimed; however, the claims explicitly recite “a largest amplitude difference.” In conjunction with Valdes’s use of plural antenna patterns, described above, the claimed “largest amplitude difference” is taught by [Col. 5, ll. 58-59]. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
In support of the above argument the Applicant purports, “The specification makes clear that the claimed ‘first antenna radiation pattern’ is intentionally different in type from the ‘second antenna radiation patterns’ (e.g., delta/notch behavior), the calibration metric is expressly the amplitude difference between first-pattern returns and second-pattern returns at a predetermined angle to locate an ‘ideal notch position,’ and only after choosing the second pattern does the system enter normal operation alternating between the first mode and chosen second mode (SPEC [0051]-[0071], [0056]-[0063], [0068]-[0074]; see also method steps S500/S600 at SPEC [0071]-[0074])” and suggests the aforementioned features are not taught by the prior art. The Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although the aforementioned features are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words used by the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Further, It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications, that are anticipated or unpatentable. As the above features are not explicitly claimed the Examiner maintains the art rejection.
On Page 10 of their remarks the Applicant restates the above argument regarding “a fixed comparator” and additionally argues that Vollbracht fails to disclose “calibration by evaluating amplitude differences between two radiation patterns at a predetermined angular direction.” The Examiner points to the argument regarding “a fixed comparator” is addressed above. Further, MPEP 2111.02(II) states, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Although the independent claims’ preambles recite “for calibration,” the body of each claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. The claims recite a structurally complete invention in the claim body, and the use of “for calibration” of the preamble is not a claim limitation; the claim body limitations of “evaluating amplitude differences between two radiation patterns at a predetermined angular direction” does not necessitate the intended use of “calibration,” the Examiner again respectfully points to MPEP 2111.02(II). Further Vollbracht is not solely relied upon to teach the claimed subject matter “calibration by evaluating amplitude differences between two radiation patterns at a predetermined angular direction.” It has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As the Applicant does not furnish further evidence in support of the above argument, the Examiner maintains the art rejection.
The Applicant further purports that the Office has not articulated “a reasoned, evidence-backed rationale for why a POSITA would re-purpose Vollbracht's common-port virtual-array architecture into Valdes's reflector/beam-calibration workflow and specifically arrive at the claimed difference-based selection and post-selection alternating operation.” The Examiner notes that it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection previously set fourth does not “re-purpose Vollbracht’s common-port virtual-array architecture into Valdes's reflector/beam-calibration workflow and specifically arrive at the claimed difference-based selection and post-selection alternating operation.” Simply, the combination of Vollbracht and Valdes make obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “in a predetermined angular direction with respect to predefined reference direction, determining which second antenna radiation pattern provides a largest amplitude difference of the received reflected signal between the first antenna radiation pattern and the second antenna radiation patterns and choosing the chosen second antenna radiation pattern providing the largest amplitude difference” as recited by independent claim 1. Additionally, the Applicant purports that a reasoned, evidence-backed rationale has not been articulated without further providing support for this position. Page 3 of the non-final rejection plainly states a reason for combination with evidence-backed rationale sourced and cited from Valdes. As the Applicant provides no argument or evidence to the contrary the Examiner maintains that the combination is proper.
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 and 18-19 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Vollbracht discloses
A vehicle radar system comprising; a control unit and a radar transceiver (“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]) that in turn comprises a controllable transmitter antenna arrangement and a receiver antenna arrangement (“a radar circuit for transceiving antenna signals “ [0100]), where the control unit is adapted to control the radar transceiver to: generate and transmit a transmitted radar signal (“The radar circuit may comprise a signal generator for generating the antenna signals ”[0025]), 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]), including configuring at least one of: a phase shift value and/or a power back-off value for each second antenna radiation pattern of the plurality of second antenna radiation patterns (“The individual radar signals and/or individual antenna signals may exhibit individual and mutually independent signal parameters, such as phases, […] phase shifts, “ [0035]), 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 19, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Vollbracht discloses wherein, the control unit is adapted to control the transmitter antenna arrangement to configure the phase shift value for each second antenna radiation pattern of the plurality of second antenna radiation patterns (“The individual radar signals and/or individual antenna signals may exhibit individual and mutually independent signal parameters, such as phases, […] phase shifts, “ [0035])
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht(US20210239822A1) as modified by Valdes(US11789116B2) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of POIGER(CN109642943A).
Regarding claim 16, 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 determining which second antenna radiation pattern provides the largest amplitude difference of the received reflected signal includes selecting, among the plurality of second 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]), a selected second pattern […] by maximizing a difference or a ratio between: (i) measurements obtained when transmitting with the first antenna radiation pattern (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum” [Col.5, ll.58-59]), and (ii) measurements obtained when transmitting with the candidate second antenna radiation pattern for that same predetermined angular direction (“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])
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).
Vollbracht as modified by Valdes do not appear to explicitly disclose a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle. POIGER teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar transceivers in vehicles. POIGER discloses whereon, each of the second antenna radiation patterns is a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle (“the radiated energy has a deep notch in the line of sight to form δ pattern 41” [0060]), […] a corresponding notch positioned at the predetermined angular direction (“the pole at 0° in the δ pattern 41” [0061]).
POIGER teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar transceivers in vehicles. 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 as modified by Valdes with the teachings of POIGER to incorporate the features of disclose a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle so as to gain the advantage of reducing multipath effects [0022 POIGER]. 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 17, 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 second antenna radiation pattern that provides the largest amplitude difference by selecting (“ 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]), among the plurality of second patterns, a selected second pattern with […] by maximizing a difference or a ratio between: (i) measurements obtained when transmitting with the first antenna radiation pattern (“It will thus be appreciated that the maximum can be selected as the optimum” [Col.5, ll.58-59]), and (ii) measurements obtained when transmitting with the candidate second antenna radiation pattern for that same predetermined angular direction (“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])
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).
Vollbracht as modified by Valdes do not appear to explicitly disclose a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle. POIGER teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar transceivers in vehicles. POIGER discloses whereon, each of the second antenna radiation patterns is a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle (“the radiated energy has a deep notch in the line of sight to form δ pattern 41” [0060]) […] a corresponding notch positioned at the predetermined angular direction (“the pole at 0° in the δ pattern 41” [0061]).
POIGER teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar transceivers in vehicles. 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 as modified by Valdes with the teachings of POIGER to incorporate the features of disclose a delta type pattern having a notch at an associated angle so as to gain the advantage of reducing multipath effects [0022 POIGER]. 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht(US20210239822A1) as modified by Valdes(US11789116B2) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Pond(US11183756B1).
Regarding claim 20, Vollbracht as modified by Valdes discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Vollbracht discloses wherein, wherein the control unit is adapted to control the transmitter antenna arrangement to configure […] of the phase shift value […] value for each second antenna radiation pattern of the plurality of second antenna radiation patterns (“The individual radar signals and/or individual antenna signals may exhibit individual and mutually independent signal parameters, such as phases, […] phase shifts, “ [0035])
Vollbracht as modified by Valdes does not appear to explicitly disclose a power back off value. Pond teaches in the same field of radar transceivers in vehicles. Pond discloses wherein, the control unit is adapted to control the transmitter antenna arrangement to […]the power back-off value (“The indications can be programmed such that a power supply circuit can be programmed and/or reprogrammed with the location/back off indication”[Col.4, ll.16-19]).
Pond teaches in the same field of radar transceivers in vehicles. 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 as modified by Valdes with the teachings of Pond to incorporate the features of disclose a power back off value so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption [Col.3, Par.5 Pond]. 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).
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.
LEE(US20220260709A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0005] “a device capability including a maximum power and a power back off.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights