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 Objections
Claims 13 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites,
“The radar sensor device according to claim 12,
wherein a causing the transmission relates to another radar sensor and the trainsmission is emitted by the other radar sensor.” but should instead recite,
“The radar sensor device according to claim 12,
wherein a causing the transmission relates to another radar sensor and the transmission is emitted by the other radar sensor.”
Claim 23 recites,
“The method according to claim 20,
using which the reference sensor, after synchronization and transmission of the messages from a plurality of radar sensors, transmits messages for coordinating transmissions of the various radar sensors by transmitting a suitable ramp sequence, wherein controllers of the plurality of radar sensors interpret the message according to the predefined code book.” but should instead recite,
“The method according to claim 20,
wherein the reference sensor, after synchronization and transmission of the messages from a plurality of radar sensors, transmits messages for coordinating transmissions of the various radar sensors by transmitting a suitable ramp sequence, wherein controllers of the plurality of radar sensors interpret the message according to the predefined code book.”
Appropriate correction is required. For the sake of examination, Examiner has interpreted the affected claims to recite their corrected forms.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the detected frequency" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 12 to instead recite “a detected frequency”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Himmelstoss et al. (DE 102019217063 A1), hereinafter Himmelstoss.
Regarding claim 17, Himmelstoss teaches a method for operating a radar sensor device, comprising the following steps:
providing a radar sensor device including at least one radar sensor and one reference sensor (para. 28, “In the situation shown, the radar sensor B of vehicle 1 and the radar sensor F of vehicle 2 are positioned opposite each other in such a way that radar sensor B directly receives the radar waves sent by radar sensor F, and vice versa.”; either of Himmelstoss’ vehicles’ radar sensor may be a reference sensor),
detecting pulse disturbances generated by a transmission of the reference sensor in a received signal of the radar sensor and calculating transmission frequencies of the transmission of the reference sensor (paras. 38-39, “The frequency bands f1 and f2 are offset from each other, but overlap, so that at certain times, when two frequency ramps 12, 14 intersect and thus send signals with the same frequency, interference occurs. The detector in the first sensor determines that the temporal center of the interference is closer to the beginning of its [rising] frequency ramps than to the end of these ramps. This suggests that the frequency band f2 is shifted downwards relative to the frequency band f1. The detector in the second sensor also detects that the temporal center of the interference is located near the beginning of its [falling] frequency ramps. This allows us to conclude that the frequency band f1 is shifted upwards relative to the frequency band f2.”; determination of a difference between interfering frequency bands necessarily involves identifying/calculating said frequency bands; Fig. 6 in view of para. 35, step of detecting interference-related disturbances of received signals in S1; Figs. 2-5, frequency bands f1 and f2 are pulsed), and
controlling the radar sensor using a controller in such a way that by adjusting of modulation parameters including center frequency, ramp gradient, and point in time of transmission, a detected frequency of the frequency generated by the reference sensor in the received signal of the radar sensor is constant (see the rejection of claim 12 and the following citations for evidence of adjustment of the following transmission signal parameters: para. 36 for center frequency, para. 14 and Fig. 8 for ramp gradient, Figs. 2-4 and 7-8 for pulse repetition rate and number of frequency ramps per measurement cycle, and para. 67 for pauses between measurement cycles; Figs. 2-5, adjusted transmit signals f1’ and f2’ are constant in center frequency and thus the received signals will be constant in center frequency as well; presence of a controller/processor to perform this limitation is implicit; see Honda paras. 31 and 47-48 for further example of a controller controlling signal transmission and detecting/mitigating interference in a received transmission signal of another vehicular radar system).
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 12-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelstoss in view of Honda et al. (US 20080106458 A1), hereinafter Honda.
Regarding claim 12, Himmelstoss teaches a radar sensor device, comprising:
at least one radar sensor (para. 26, “Each vehicle has a radar sensor F in the front, facing forward in the direction of travel, a radar sensor B in the rear, facing backward in the direction of travel, and side radar sensors L and R, which are directed to the left and right respectively.”), and
a controller connected to the at least one radar sensor, the controller being configured to control a process of generating a transmission signal and a process of sampling a received signal of the radar sensor (para. 16, “The operating range of a given radar sensor may be characterized by a frequency band in which the transmitted signal lies, or, in the case of coded signals, by a set of code symbols transmitted by the radar sensor.”; defining an operating frequency band of a transmit signal requires its generation; para. 63, “Typically, radar sensors for motor vehicles, such as FMCW radar sensors, transmit a periodic sequence of frequency-modulated signals, alternating between activity time windows in which transmission and reception occur and quiet time windows in which neither transmission nor reception occurs. During the activity time windows, the received data is digitized and stored and passed to a processor, which then takes over the further evaluation.”; digitization of a received signal requires its sampling; the presence of at least one controller/processor to generate and transmit a signal, and sample a received signal is implicit; see Honda paras. 31 and 47-48 for further example of a controller controlling signal transmission),
wherein the transmission signal is a periodically repeated and linearly frequency-modulated signal (para. 64, “The upper part shows an example of a frequency modulation pattern with falling ramps 14 in a frequency/time diagram. The lower part shows a logic signal indicating the activity of the transmitting and receiving parts of the radar sensor. The modulation pattern contains a periodic sequence of activity time windows 16, in which measurements are taken, i.e., radar signals are sent and received, and quiet windows 18, in which the transmitting and receiving part is inactive and only an evaluation of the data takes place.”):
(i) a center frequency of the transmission signal (para. 36, “Examples of such measures include shifting the frequency band in which the radar sensor transmits, as well as shifting the activity time window in which the transmitting and receiving part of the radar sensor is active.”; shifting frequency band shifts center frequency by the same amount), and/or
(ii) a ramp gradient of the transmission signal (para. 14, “For example, in some cases a successful evasive maneuver may consist of inverting the slope of the frequency ramp of the transmitted signal.”), and/or
(iii) a pulse repetition rate of the transmission signal (Figs. 2-4 and 7-8, it can be seen that repetition rates of activity time windows which contain pulses can be adjusted), and/or
(iv) a number of frequency ramps per measurement cycle (Figs. 2-4 and 7-8, it can be seen that the number of frequency ramps per activity time window can be adjusted), and/or
(v) pauses between measurement cycles, can be adjusted (para. 67, “Provided that the sensors involved operate with the same measurement cycle time, the temporal relationship between the interference events and the activity time window 16 remains constant. If the cycle times differ, a drift of the activity time window 16 occurs, which from time to time requires a correction by inserting another pause 20.”), but fails to teach
the controller is configured to detect pulse interference occurring in the sampled received signal and to calculate frequencies of a transmission causing the interference.
However, Honda teaches
the controller is configured to detect interference occurring in the sampled received signal and to calculate frequencies of a transmission causing the interference (paras. 47-48, “FIG. 4 is a flow chart diagram that describes the operation procedure of the on-vehicle radar device of the above-mentioned embodiment. This flow chart diagram describes the procedure by which the controller 10 controls the operation of each part of the on-vehicle radar device, following a control program. First, upon completion of transmitting the monitoring signal frequency modulated by the triangle wave (S10), frequency analysis of the received signal is performed for the rising region of the triangle wave and for the falling region thereof (S12). Then, upon detecting interference by the monitoring signal detector 28 (YES at S14), the time of the interference is identified and the instantaneous frequency fx of the interference wave is acquired (S16). Then the frequency of the local oscillator 12 is set at fx (S18). Then signal generated by the oscillator 12 and the interference signal are mixed by the mixer 24, and the priority-order code of the other device is read out (S20).”), where Himmelstoss teaches the detection of pulse interference occurring in the sampled received signal (Himmelstoss; Figs. 7-8, interference event 22 is detected in the reception of another vehicle’s transmit signal, where the transmit signal 14 is pulsed; see para. 63 for evidence of digitization and thus sampling of the received signal).
Himmelstoss and Honda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technology of interference mitigation between vehicular radar systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Himmelstoss with the teachings of Honda with the motivation of being able to accurately identify interfering frequencies, which is more time-efficient than implementing frequency jumps until interference no longer occurs.
Regarding claim 13, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the radar sensor device according to claim 12,
wherein (Himmelstoss; para. 28, “In the situation shown, the radar sensor B of vehicle 1 and the radar sensor F of vehicle 2 are positioned opposite each other in such a way that radar sensor B directly receives the radar waves sent by radar sensor F, and vice versa.”).
Regarding claim 14, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the radar sensor device according to claim 12, further comprising:
a reference control unit, and a reference sensor which is configured to emit a reference transmission signal, wherein the controller is connected to the radar sensor and using the reference control unit, the reference sensor, the controller, and the radar sensor, the transmission signal of the radar sensor can be synchronized with the reference transmission signal of the reference sensor with regard to a transmission and sampling by the controller (Himmelstoss; para. 65, “If the sensors are not synchronized, procedures analogous to Fig. 4 until Fig. 6 […] can be used to avoid interference by shifting the activity time windows.”; see para. 63 for digitization and thus sampling of a received signal during an activity time window which may be synchronized; see paras. 65-67 for evidence of the radar sensor detector of each vehicle containing an implicit controller/control unit able to detect desynchronization and perform synchronization, where either vehicle’s radar sensor and transmission signal may be a reference sensor and reference transmission signal respectively).
Regarding claim 15, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the radar sensor device according to claim 12, but Himmelstoss fails to teach
wherein the transmission signal includes a triangular signal.
However, Honda teaches
wherein the transmission signal includes a triangular signal (para. 33 in view of Fig. 3A, “For example, as shown in FIG. 3 (A) in which wave form diagram represents the signals transmitted by the on-vehicle radar device with a triangle wave portion being the frequency modulated monitoring signal and with a straight line portion being the priority-order signal at the center frequency f12 of the modulation frequency of the monitoring signal, the controller 10 switches alternately transmitting the monitoring signal in the periods SP1, SP2, … and the priority-order signal in the periods PP1, PP2, …”).
Himmelstoss and Honda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technology of interference mitigation between vehicular radar systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Himmelstoss with the teachings of Honda with the motivation that triangular signals may be processed to unambiguously decouple a target’s range from its radial velocity.
Regarding claim 16, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the radar sensor device according to claim 14,
wherein a reference unit which includes the reference control unit and the reference sensor, and a further sensor unit which includes the controller and the radar sensor, are located in different vehicles (Himmelstoss; para. 28, “In the situation shown, the radar sensor B of vehicle 1 and the radar sensor F of vehicle 2 are positioned opposite each other in such a way that radar sensor B directly receives the radar waves sent by radar sensor F, and vice versa.”; see rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 18, Himmelstoss teaches the method according to claim 17,
wherein the controller is connected to the at least one radar sensor, the controller being configured to control a process of generating a transmission signal and a process of sampling a received signal of the radar sensor, wherein the transmission signal is a periodically repeated and linearly frequency-modulated signal: (i) a center frequency of the transmission signal, and/or (ii) a ramp gradient of the transmission signal, and/or (iii) a pulse repetition rate of the transmission signal, and/or (iv) a number of frequency ramps per measurement cycle, and/or (v) pauses between measurement cycles, can be adjusted (see rejection of claim 12), but fails to teach
the controller is configured to detect pulse interference occurring in the sampled received signal and to calculate frequencies of a transmission causing the interference.
However, Honda teaches
the controller is configured to detect interference occurring in the sampled received signal and to calculate frequencies of a transmission causing the interference (see rejection of claim 12; see Honda paras. 31 and 47-48 for further example of a controller as claimed), where Himmelstoss teaches the detection of pulse interference occurring in the sampled received signal (Himmelstoss; Figs. 7-8, interference event 22 is detected in the reception of another vehicle’s transmit signal, where the transmit signal 14 is pulsed; see para. 63 for evidence of digitization and thus sampling of the received signal).
Himmelstoss and Honda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technology of interference mitigation between vehicular radar systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Himmelstoss with the teachings of Honda with the motivation of being able to accurately identify interfering frequencies, which is more time-efficient than implementing frequency jumps until interference no longer occurs.
Regarding claim 19, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the method according to claim 17, further comprising:
synchronizing transmissions from the radar sensor with the transmissions from the reference sensor (Himmelstoss; para. 65, “If the sensors are not synchronized, procedures analogous to Fig. 4 until Fig. 6 […] can be used to avoid interference by shifting the activity time windows.”), and
controlling the radar sensor using the controller with a sequence of ramp gradients that is suitable for minimizing a duration of an amplitude pulse disturbances and thus the interference (Himmelstoss; paras. 35-36, “To avoid or at least mitigate interference, each radar sensor in every vehicle contains a detector in its hardware and/or software, for example a known power detector, which is able to detect the occurrence of interference-related disturbances based on fluctuations in the intensity of the received signal and to measure the strength of the disturbance as well as the time of onset and the duration of the disturbance. Furthermore, each sensor in each vehicle has an evasion strategy implemented, which is activated when the detector has detected interference and includes measures that are expected to suppress or reduce the interference in at least most cases occurring in practice.”; fluctuations in the intensity of the received pulsed signal is indicative of interference-related disturbances; Fig. 8 in view of para. 14, frequency ramp gradient/slope is inverted).
Regarding claim 20, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the method according to claim 17, further comprising:
controlling the radar sensor using the controller with a sequence of ramp gradients that is suitable for generating a sequence of amplitude pulse disturbances in the received signal of the reference sensor, the sequence transmitting a message based on a defined code book (Himmelstoss; para. 16, “The operating range of a given radar sensor may be characterized by a frequency band in which the transmitted signal lies, or, in the case of coded signals, by a set of code symbols transmitted by the radar sensor.”; code symbols are inherently stored in memory; para. 35, “To avoid or at least mitigate interference, each radar sensor in every vehicle contains a detector in its hardware and/or software, for example a known power detector, which is able to detect the occurrence of interference-related disturbances based on fluctuations in the intensity of the received signal and to measure the strength of the disturbance as well as the time of onset and the duration of the disturbance.”; see Figs. 2-5 for evidence of a sequence of ramp gradients in signal f1).
Regarding claim 21, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the method according to claim 20, further comprising:
minimizing interference of the message at the radar sensor in conjunction with controlling the radar sensor using the controller with a sequence of ramp gradients which has a time offset to transmissions from the reference sensor that is suitable to avoid or reduce interference generated by the reference sensor in the received signal of the radar sensor (Himmelstoss; para. 67, “To avoid interference, a pause 20 is inserted after the rest phase 18. This shifts the subsequent activity time windows 16 so that they are offset relative to the source of interference. Provided that the sensors involved operate with the same measurement cycle time, the temporal relationship between the interference events and the activity time window 16 remains constant.”; Fig. 7, pause 20 between transmitted ramp gradients).
Regarding claim 22, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the method according to claim 20, further comprising:
minimizing interference of the message at the radar sensor, in conjunction with controlling the radar sensor using the controller with a sequence of ramp gradients which has a frequency offset to transmissions from the reference sensor that is suitable to avoid or reduce interference generated by the reference sensor in the received signal from the radar sensor (Himmelstoss; para. 55, “In step S1, it is checked whether interference [with a strength above a certain threshold] has been detected. This step is repeated cyclically as long as no interference is detected (N). If interference has been detected (Y), step S2 checks whether a clear frequency jump direction can be determined based on the distribution of the temporal centroids of the interferences over several frequency ramps, which would lead to a reduction of the interference. If this is the case (Y), the frequency jump is executed in step S3 [this would correspond to the avoidance strategy according to Fig. 2], and there is a return to step S1.”; see Fig. 2, implementation of frequency jump on transmitted ramp gradients).
Regarding claim 23, Himmelstoss in view of Honda teaches the method according to claim 20,
which the reference sensor, after synchronization and transmission of the messages from a plurality of radar sensors, transmits messages for coordinating transmissions of the various radar sensors by transmitting a suitable ramp sequence, wherein controllers of the plurality of radar sensors interpret the message according to the predefined code book (Himmelstoss; para. 5, “Interference can also be avoided if the activity time windows of the transmitting and receiving parts are coordinated so that one radar sensor transmits while the other radar sensor is inactive.”; para. 16, “The operating range of a given radar sensor may be characterized by a frequency band in which the transmitted signal lies, or, in the case of coded signals, by a set of code symbols transmitted by the radar sensor.”; code symbols are inherently stored in memory; para. 28, “In the situation shown, the radar sensor B of vehicle 1 and the radar sensor F of vehicle 2 are positioned opposite each other in such a way that radar sensor B directly receives the radar waves sent by radar sensor F, and vice versa.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights