DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 12 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melnikov (US 20240353530), in view of Shahid (US 20250130326), and in view of Doare (US 20200003883).
Regarding Claim 1, Melnikov teaches the following limitations:
A first wireless device comprising: (Melnikov – [0002] The present disclosure relates to radar signal processing. Examples relate to an apparatus, a radar system, an electronic device and a method.)
a first antenna coupled to a transmission (TX) chain; (Melnikov – [0003] Crosstalk (e.g., between transmit and receive antennas) and near-range obstacles (e.g., a casing) may result in undesired signal components appearing in an intermediate frequency (IF) signal of a radar sensor, which in turn can lead to erroneous detection and tracking of objects. Hence, there may be a demand for improved radar signal processing. [0004] determine a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal.)
a second antenna coupled to a receive (RX) chain; (Melnikov – [0003])
one or more processors; and (Melnikov – [0034] The processing circuitry 110 may be, e.g., a single dedicated processor, a single shared processor, or a plurality of individual processors, some of which or all of which may be shared, a digital signal processor (DSP) hardware, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a microcontroller or a field programmable gate array (FPGA). The processing circuitry 110 may optionally be coupled to, e.g., read only memory (ROM) for storing software, random access memory (RAM) and/or non-volatile memory.)
one or more computer readable media storing processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to: (Melnikov – [0034])
send, during a first operational cycle of a radar mode, a first radar signal via the TX chain and the first antenna; (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031] The radar sensor may be configured to emit a radio frequency signal into the field of view of the radar sensor and generate the IF signal based on a reflection of the radio frequency signal. [0100] FIG. 14 illustrates a flowchart of another example of a method 1400. The method 1400 may, for instance, be performed by an apparatus as described herein, such as apparatus 100. The method 1400 may, for instance, represent an operation mode of the apparatus 100. [0101] The method 1400 comprises receiving and/or determining 1410 a frame of an IF signal of a radar sensor and determining 1420 whether a calibration of the apparatus is complete… For instance, the frames may be accumulated and after a predefined number of N free-space frames is reached, these are used to calculate the leakage profile.)
generate first radar data based on first radar returns corresponding to the first radar signal, (Melnikov – [0004], [0031])
wherein the first radar returns comprise leakage between the first and second antennas; (Melnikov – [0038] The crosstalk, e.g., a Tx-Rx-crosstalk (leakage), or interference may refer to an unwanted coupling of energy from one signal path of the radar sensor to another.)
send, during a first operational cycle of a radio mode, data to a second wireless device via the TX chain and the first antenna; (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031])
send, during a second operational cycle of the radar mode, a second radar signal via the TX chain and the first antenna; and (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101])
generate second radar data based on second radar returns corresponding to the second radar signal, (Melnikov – [0004], [0031])
wherein the second radar returns comprise leakage between the first and second antennas; (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101])
align the second radar data to the first radar data based on the leakage of the first and second radar returns; (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101])
wherein the aligning calculates (leakage profile) (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset”.)
detect, using the aligned second radar data, a presence of a person within a field of view (FOV) of radar operations of the first wireless device. (Melnikov – [0080] the processing circuitry 110 may be configured to determine at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal. Melnikov does not explicitly teach “detect a presence of a person”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a presence of a person (Shahid – [0110] the algorithm described in connection with FIGS. 8 and 10 may be used for detecting the human presence even if a person is sitting/standing stationary in an environment.)
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Doare, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset between the first radar frame and the second radar frame (Doare - [0061] In this example, the master-slave distribution and synchronization circuit 360 is configured to embed a frame start signal, such as a chirp start (RFS_in) signal 380 in a radar unit, [0108] In some examples, a systematic error between the synchronized data and clock signals, which can be due to process variations, for example, can be tolerated and may be compensated through a higher level phase calibration. After such process impact calibration, the MCU may be configured to add a dedicated systematic phase offset on each receiver channel at, say, the start-up of the respective master and slave devices, whose value may be found during a calibration process to align all phases of all signals (e.g. intermediate frequency (IF) signals) coming from all receivers. For optimal operation of distributed radar systems, it is important that the signals (such as LO 140, MS clock signal 142 and RFS 166 from FIG. 1) are synchronous across all receiver circuits on different devices.)
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 the calibrated signal of Melnikov with the higher level phase calibration of Doare in order to synchronize all receiver circuits (Doare – [0108]).
Regarding Claim 2, Melnikov further teaches:
the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to generate third radar data by cross-frame cancellation the aligned second radar data with the first radar data, (Melnikov – [0079] The processing circuitry 110 may, for instance, be configured to average over respective range representations of the predefined number of frames. For instance, the processing circuitry 110 may determine the respective range representations by, e.g., applying an FFT to each of the frames. The range representation may be an arrangement of the IF signal into range bins. Samples of the respective range representations may then, for instance, be superimposed to determine the undesired signal component. In some examples, the processing circuitry 110 is configured to average over all range bins of the respective range representations. The latter may enable a crosstalk cancellation over all range bins such that no discontinuity in the range spectrum or residual leakage sidelobes occur.)
wherein the third radar data is used to detect the presence of the person. (Melnikov – [0079] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “detect the presence of a person”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein to detect the presence of the person, (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Regarding Claim 3, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the first operational cycle of the radar mode occurs before the second operational cycle of the radio mode, and the second operational cycle of the radar mode occurs after the first operational cycle of the radio mode. (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101])
Regarding Claim 4, Melnikov teaches the following limitations:
A method of operating a first wireless device, the method comprising: (Melnikov – [0002])
receiving a first radar frame comprising leakage between a transmit (TX) antenna and a receive (RX) antenna of the first wireless device; (Melnikov – [0038], [0079])
receiving, after receiving the first radar frame, a second radar frame comprising leakage between the TX antenna and the RX antenna; (Melnikov – [0038], [0079])
aligning the second radar frame to the first radar frame based on their respective leakages, wherein the aligning calculates (leakage profile) (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0038], [0079], [0100], [0101] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
detecting a presence. (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Doare, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset between the first radar frame and the second radar frame (Doare - [0061], [0108])
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 the calibrated signal of Melnikov with the higher level phase calibration of Doare in order to synchronize all receiver circuits (Doare – [0108]).
Regarding Claims 5, 13, Melnikov further teaches:
further comprising sending, (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031])
(Claim 13) wherein the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to send, (Melnikov – [0034])
after receiving the first radar frame and before receiving the second radar frame, data to a second wireless device via the TX antenna. (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0100], [0101])
Regarding Claims 6, 15, Melnikov further teaches:
(Claim 15) wherein the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to: (Melnikov – [0034])
further comprising: generating a first radar data set representing a first range fast Fourier transform (FFT) using the first radar frame; and (Melnikov – [0079])
generating a second radar data set representing a second range FFT using the second radar frame, (Melnikov – [0079])
wherein aligning the second radar frame to the first radar frame comprises aligning the second radar data set to the first radar data set, and (Melnikov – [0079])
wherein aligning the second radar data set to the first radar data set generates a third radar data set representing a cross-frame cancellation between the first and second radar frames. (Melnikov – [0079])
Regarding Claims 7, 16, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the leakage of the first radar frame corresponds to a first magnitude value of the first radar data set and (Melnikov – [0049] The signal source may be a signal component of the IF signal caused by actual power transmission, e.g., due to a potential target, crosstalk or near-range obstacles, thus, not due to noise. [0061] The Pisarenko harmonic decomposition method may provide information about the power of the signal sources, included in the IF signal.)
the leakage of the second radar frame corresponds to a second magnitude value of the second radar data set, and (Melnikov – [0038], [0049], [0061], [0079])
wherein the second radar data set is aligned to the first radar data set using the first and second magnitude values. (Melnikov – [0004], [0038], [0049], [0061], [0079])
Regarding Claims 8, 17, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the leakage of the first radar frame corresponds to a first phase value of the first data set and (Melnikov – [0075] the outer roots 710-4, 710-7 in FIGS. 7b and 710-8 and 710-11 in FIG. 7c may exhibit a phase or angle which make them occupy a median position between the true loci of the crosstalk and target roots. This may be an indication that the current frame is not a free-space measurement.)
the leakage of the second radar frame corresponds to a second phase value of the second data set, and (Melnikov – [0004], [0038], [0075], [0079])
wherein the second radar data set is aligned to the first radar data set using the first and second phase values. (Melnikov – [0004], [0038], [0075], [0079])
Regarding Claims 9, 18, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the third radar data set comprises a first peak value that satisfies a first threshold, and (Melnikov – [0079], [0054] The processing circuitry 110 may determine the signal component's frequency by determining (locating) a peak in the spectrum of the noise subspace 400.)
(Claim 18) the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to (Melnikov – [0034])
determining that a threshold number of consecutive radar data sets each representing cross-frame cancellation between radar frames comprise respective peak values that each satisfy respective thresholds. (Melnikov – [0054], [0079])
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein detecting the presence of the target comprises (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Regarding Claim 10, Melnikov further teaches:
further comprising generating a fourth radar data set by combining the third radar data set and a plurality of historical radar data sets each corresponding to a historical radar frame, (Melnikov – [0079])
wherein detecting the presence of the target comprises determining that a threshold number of radar frames within a sliding window comprising the fourth radar data set indicate the presence of the target. (Melnikov – [0079] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “indicate the presence of the target”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
indicate the presence of the target (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Regarding Claims 11, 20, Melnikov further teaches:
(Claim 20) the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to (Melnikov – [0034])
determining that a threshold number of radar frames within a sliding window comprising the fourth radar data set indicate the presence of the target. (Melnikov – [0079] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “indicate the presence of the target”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein detecting the presence of the target comprises… indicate the presence of the target (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Regarding Claim 12, Melnikov teaches the following limitations:
A first wireless device comprising: (Melnikov – [0002])
a transmit (TX) antenna and a receive (RX) antenna; (Melnikov – [0003], [0004])
one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media storing processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to: (Melnikov – [0034])
receive a first radar frame comprising leakage between a transmit (TX) antenna and a receive (RX) antenna of the first wireless device; (Melnikov – [0038], [0079])
receive, after receiving the first radar frame, a second radar frame comprising leakage between the TX antenna and the RX antenna; (Melnikov – [0038], [0079])
align the second radar frame to the first radar frame based on their respective leakages, wherein the aligning calculates (leakage profile) using the aligned second radar frame, (Melnikov – [Fig. 14], [0004], [0031], [0038], [0079], [0100], [0101] Melnikov does not explicitly teach “reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset”.)
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Shahid, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a presence of a target. (Shahid – [0110])
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 the processing of Melnikov with the algorithm of Shahid in order to detect the presence of a human (Shahid – [0110]).
Melnikov does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Doare, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
reduces at least one of a magnitude offset or a phase offset between the first radar frame and the second radar frame (Doare - [0061], [0108])
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 the calibrated signal of Melnikov with the higher level phase calibration of Doare in order to synchronize all receiver circuits (Doare – [0108]).
Regarding Claims 14, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the first wireless device comprises an application processor (AP), (Melnikov – [0034])
a microcontroller unit (MCU), and (Melnikov – [0034])
a connectivity chipset, (Melnikov – [0030] The interface circuitry 120 may be any device or means for communicating or exchanging data. [0138] application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), integrated circuits (ICs) or system-on-a-chip (SoCs) systems programmed to execute the steps of the methods described above.)
wherein the first and second radar frames are received by the MCU from the connectivity chipset, and (Melnikov – [0030], [0034], [0138])
wherein the data sent to the second wireless device is received by the connectivity chipset from the AP. (Melnikov – [0030], [0034], [0138])
Regarding Claims 19, Melnikov further teaches:
wherein the processor executable instructions which, when executed using the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to: (Melnikov – [0034])
generate a fourth radar data set by combining the third radar data set and a plurality of historical radar data sets each corresponding to a historical radar frame. (Melnikov – [0079])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Melnikov, in view of Shahid, in view of Doare teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights