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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer readable medium. The applicant’s specification does not limit the computer readable medium to only “non-transitory” examples of the computer readable medium. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the computer readable medium as encompassing transitory signals in addition to non-transitory embodiments. Claim 20 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for including transitory signals within its scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 (specifically, claims 1-6, 8-13, 16, and 18-20) recite parameters xπ, c, d1, d2, a, b, x, y, x1, x2, k, m, l, a(x), b(x), f(x), x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3, x4, and y4 which are not properly defined in the claims, and it is unclear as to what exactly these parameters are, what they represent, how they are used to generate the GCP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levitan et al US 20210278521 (hereinafter Levitan).
Regarding claim 1, Levitan discloses a device sensing method (see [0026], [0045]), comprising:
sending a sensing signal, wherein the sensing signal is generated based on a Golay complementary pair (GCP) with a length of N, and N is greater than or equal to 32 (see [0045], [0047]);
receiving an echo signal of the sensing signal (see [0045]); and
performing processing based on the echo signal (1118, 1120, see [0067], [0071]-[0072]), wherein when N is equal to 128, parameters used to generate the GCP are any one of the following groups (not invoked because N is greater than 32 (and the examiner is not unaware of what these parameters are), see [0045], [0047]):
PNG
media_image1.png
682
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
471
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Levitan discloses a device sensing method, comprising:
sending a sensing signal, wherein the sensing signal is generated based on a Golay complementary pair (GCP) with a length of N, and N is greater than or equal to 32 (see [0045], [0047]);
receiving an echo signal of the sensing signal (see [0045]); and
performing processing based on the echo signal (1118, 1120, see [0067], [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 1, Levitan further discloses wherein the sensing signal is a single-carrier signal or a multi-carrier signal ([0029], [0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Levitan discloses a communication apparatus (see fig. 11), comprising a processor (see fig. 11) configured to execute instructions, to perform operations:
sending a sensing signal, wherein the sensing signal is generated based on a Golay complementary pair (GCP) with a length of N, and N is greater than or equal to 32 (see [0045], [0047]);
receiving an echo signal of the sensing signal (see [0045]); and
performing processing based on the echo signal (1118, 1120, see [0067], [0071]-[0072]), wherein when N is equal to 128, parameters used to generate the GCP are any one of the following groups (not invoked because N is greater than 32 (and the examiner is not unaware of what these parameters are), see [0045], [0047]):
PNG
media_image1.png
682
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
471
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Levitan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions, and when the instructions are executed by one or more processors (see fig. 11, [0078]-[0079]), the method according to claim 1 is implemented (see [0045], [0047], [0067], [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 20, Levitan discloses a computer program product stored in a computer readable medium (see fig. 11, [0071]-[0079]), wherein when the computer program product is executed by one or more processors, the method according to claim 1 is performed (see [0045], [0047], [0067], [0071]-[0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitan et al US 20210278521 (hereinafter Levitan) in view of Chen US 20200177297 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Levitan discloses the claimed invention except wherein the GCP is generated through generalized Boolean function mapping. In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses generating a GCP using generalized Boolean function mapping (see abstract, [0015]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Chen with Levitan by using generalized Boolean function to generate a Golay complementary set, as taught by Chen, for the benefit of efficiently generating GCP with long lengths.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitan et al US 20210278521 (hereinafter Levitan) in view of Choi et al US 20210003690 (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1, Levitan discloses the claimed invention except wherein N is equal to 64 or 128. In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a sensing signal is generated based on a Golay complementary pair (GCP) with a length of N, wherein N is equal to 64 or 128 (see [0086]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Choi with Levitan by generating a GCP with a sequence length of 128 at a radar, as taught by Choi, for the benefit of overcoming signal attenuation and thus detecting objects at a farther distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
R. Sivaswamy (IEEE transactions on Information Theory) discloses multiphase complementary codes.
Weathers et al US 4,513,288 discloses A group-complementary codes provide sets of binary word groups which have the combined properties of optimized aperiodic autocorrelation and optimized cross-correlation between word sets. The optimized aperiodic autocorrelation property allows the implementation of pulse compression processing in sensor systems to achieve zero value temporal or range sidelobes within the principal interpulse period without resorting to weighting techniques for sidelobe reduction.
Farnane et al (2020 10th Internation Symposium on Signal, Image, Video and Communications (ISIVC)) analysis of the radar ambiguity function for a new Golay sets shaping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights