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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/15/2024. Claims 1-3, 10-17, 19-20 and 28-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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, 2, 14-17, 19-20, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US20170033469A1) in view of Lomnitz (US20210286070A1).
Regarding claim 1 Hoffman discloses: A method of producing a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image of a target (Para 0071: “Example of algorithms for converting the sets of responses may be for example Delay and Sum (DAS) algorithm, PFA (polar format SAR algorithm), RMA (Range Migration Algorithm).”) , the method being performed by a mobile communication device and comprising: causing a SAR image process to be performed (Figure 4), wherein the SAR image process comprises a plurality of SAR process actions comprising: obtaining SAR data by operating a transceiver of the mobile communication device to receive reflections of a radar signal transmitted at each of a plurality of different positions of the mobile communication device relative to the target (Figure 4; Para 0083: “Step 410 comprises transmitting one or more RF signals by one or more antennas of the antenna array 302 and step 415 comprises receiving at the antenna array one or more signals reflected by the outer surface 333 of the target medium and/or by the objects 350 within the target medium.”); and producing the SAR image from the SAR data (Figure 4, step 450), wherein causing the SAR image process to be performed comprises: causing the mobile communication device to perform a first set of the SAR process actions (Figure 4, steps 410-440); and causing the one or more nodes in a network to perform a second set of the SAR process actions (Para 0055: “In some case, the user 120 may scan the surface of the wall by the imaging device 130 and the scanned data may be transmitted via wire or wireless connection to a database unit located for example in a cloud or in the mobile device 100 and the scanned data may be processed by one or more external processing units or internal processing unit of the imaging device 130 or the mobile device 100.”).
Hoffman does not teach “wherein allocation of the SAR process actions between the first set of the SAR process actions and the second set of the SAR process actions is based on an evaluation of one or more criteria“.
However, Lomnitz in the analogous arts teaches: wherein allocation of the SAR process actions between the first set of the SAR process actions and the second set of the SAR process actions is based on an evaluation of one or more criteria (Para 0122: “According to system type, the computer can be stationary, laptop, tablet, palm or industrial ruggedized. It should be understood that while FIG. 1A illustrates functional decomposition into processing stages, some of those can be implemented on the same hardware (such as a common processing unit) or distributed over multiple (such as graphical processing unit, GPU) and even remote pieces of hardware (such as in the case of multiprocessing or cloud computing)”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Lomnitz to incorporate the feature of: wherein allocation of the SAR process actions between the first set of the SAR process actions and the second set of the SAR process actions is based on an evaluation of one or more criteria. Hoffman and Lomnitz are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radar technology to detect objects. However, Hoffman fails to disclose a feature of allocating processing actions based on an evaluation of a criteria. This feature is disclosed by Lomnitz. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Lomnitz to incorporate the feature of: wherein allocation of the SAR process actions between the first set of the SAR process actions and the second set of the SAR process actions is based on an evaluation of one or more criteria as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claims 17 and 19 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lomnitz further teaches: wherein the one or more criteria are dependent on one or more of: a power constraint of the mobile communication device; a processing resource constraint of the mobile communication device (Para 0122: “According to system type, the computer can be stationary, laptop, tablet, palm or industrial ruggedized. It should be understood that while FIG. 1A illustrates functional decomposition into processing stages, some of those can be implemented on the same hardware (such as a common processing unit) or distributed over multiple (such as graphical processing unit, GPU) and even remote pieces of hardware (such as in the case of multiprocessing or cloud computing)”); a buffer constraint of the mobile communication device; an amount of power consumption required to communicate between the mobile communication device and the one or more nodes in the network; and a target resolution of the SAR image.
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Lomnitz in similar to the one given in claim 1 above.
Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 2, therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lomnitz further teaches: wherein the SAR process actions comprise: determining further radar scans that need to be performed by the mobile communication device to obtain the SAR data (Figure 9).
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Lomnitz in similar to the one given in claim 1 above.
Claim 32 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 14, therefore claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lomnitz further teaches: wherein the mobile communication device periodically activates a wireless transceiver to perform a network activity at predefined instances (Figure 1C), wherein the network activity comprises one or more of receiving and transmitting a signal respectively from and to the network , and wherein the method comprises: causing the mobile communication device to perform radar scans in between the predefined instances (Figure 9); storing radar information obtained from the radar scans in a buffer (Para 0115: “The data acquisition subsystem 106 collects and digitizes the signals from the transmit/receive subsystem 104 while tagging the signals according to the antenna combination used and the time at which the signals were collected. The data acquisition subsystem will typically include analog-to-digital (A/D) converters and data buffers, but it may include additional functions such as signal averaging, correlation of waveforms with templates or converting signals between frequency and time domain.”); and maintaining the mobile communication device in an awake state throughout a time interval during which the mobile communication device performs the network activity at one or more of the predefined instances (Para 0114: “The transmit/receive subsystem 104 is responsible for generation of the microwave signals, coupling them to the antennas 102a-102e, reception of the microwave signals from the antennas and converting them into a form suitable for acquisition. The signals (e.g. RF signals) can be pulse signals, stepped-frequency signals, chirp signals and the like. The generation circuitry can involve oscillators, synthesizers, mixers, or it can be based on pulse oriented circuits such as logic gates or step-recovery diodes. The conversion process can include down conversion, sampling, and the like. The conversion process typically includes averaging in the form of low-pass filtering, to improve the signal-to-noise ratios and to allow for lower sampling rates. The transmit/receive subsystem 104 can perform transmission and reception with multiple antennas at a time or select one transmit and one receive antenna at a time, according to a tradeoff between complexity and acquisition time.”) ; and communicates the stored radar information to the one or more nodes of the network (Para 0123: “According to one embodiment of the invention, subsystems 106, 108 and 110 may be part of the measurement unit or the portable device 120, as shown in FIG. 1A. Alternatively the measurement unit 130 may be included within a housing 125 such as case or a jacket configured to be releasable (i.e. connected or disconnected) to the portable device 120. For example the measurement unit 130 may include the antenna array unit 102 and the transmit/receive-subsystem 130 may be part of the housing 125 which is electrically or wirelessly connected to the portable device 120, for example through a dedicated connection such a USB connection, wireless connection or any connection known in the art.”).
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Lomnitz in similar to the one given in claim 1 above.
Claim 33 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 15, therefore claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Lomnitz further teaches: wherein the network activity comprises: monitoring paging information from the network (Figure 1C).
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Lomnitz in similar to the one given in claim 1 above.
Claim 34 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 16, therefore claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 35 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman further teaches: A mobile communication device comprising the apparatus of any of claim 19 (Para 0061: “FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating the architecture of an RF penetration imaging system 200. The system comprises the principal functions of the above mentioned imaging device 130 and relevant functions of a mobile device 100 which may be attached to or in communication with it.”).
Claims 3, 10, 11, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US20170033469A1) in view of Lomnitz (US20210286070A1) and further in view of Choi (US20210289493A1).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman does not teach “wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement “.
However, Choi in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement (Para 0036: “The ranker AP 420 is configured to rank the APs 110 based on a needs assessment of each AP 110 and a network throughput quality contribution score for each AP 110. For example as illustrated by the method 600 of FIG. 6, at operation 610 each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement to determine a corresponding needs assessment. For example, each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement based on the supported channel bandwidth, associated client's bandwidth requirement, radar tolerance, latency sensitivity, and a ratio of data rate versus signal strength from one or more of the telemetry data 310, the resource quality data 312, the resource allocation data 314, the AP capacity data 318, and the AP platform data 320.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Choi to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement. Hoffman and Choi are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radar technology to detect objects. However, Hoffman fails to disclose a feature of allocating processing actions based on an evaluation of a criteria. This feature is disclosed by Choi. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Choi to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman does not teach “adjusting a SAR processing speed based on a measure of available memory for storing SAR data “.
However, Choi in the analogous arts teaches: adjusting a SAR processing speed based on a measure of available memory for storing SAR data (Para 0036: “The ranker AP 420 is configured to rank the APs 110 based on a needs assessment of each AP 110 and a network throughput quality contribution score for each AP 110. For example as illustrated by the method 600 of FIG. 6, at operation 610 each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement to determine a corresponding needs assessment. For example, each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement based on the supported channel bandwidth, associated client's bandwidth requirement, radar tolerance, latency sensitivity, and a ratio of data rate versus signal strength from one or more of the telemetry data 310, the resource quality data 312, the resource allocation data 314, the AP capacity data 318, and the AP platform data 320.”).
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Choi is the similar to the one given in claim 3 above.
Claim 28 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 10, therefore claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman does not teach “adjusting how frequently collected SAR data is communicated to the one or more network nodes based on a measure of available memory for storing the collected SAR data “.
However, Choi in the analogous arts teaches: adjusting how frequently collected SAR data is communicated to the one or more network nodes based on a measure of available memory for storing the collected SAR data (Para 0036: “The ranker AP 420 is configured to rank the APs 110 based on a needs assessment of each AP 110 and a network throughput quality contribution score for each AP 110. For example as illustrated by the method 600 of FIG. 6, at operation 610 each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement to determine a corresponding needs assessment. For example, each AP 110 determines a corresponding resource requirement based on the supported channel bandwidth, associated client's bandwidth requirement, radar tolerance, latency sensitivity, and a ratio of data rate versus signal strength from one or more of the telemetry data 310, the resource quality data 312, the resource allocation data 314, the AP capacity data 318, and the AP platform data 320.”).
The reason for modifying Hoffman with Choi is the similar to the one given in claim 3 above.
Claim 29 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 11, therefore claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US20170033469A1) in view of Lomnitz (US20210286070A1) and further in view of Nishimura (US7692575B2).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman does not teach “adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a level of interaction between the mobile communication device and the one or more nodes in the network that is related to scanning trajectory guidance”.
However, Nishimura in the analogous arts teaches: adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a level of interaction between the mobile communication device and the one or more nodes in the network that is related to scanning trajectory guidance (Description (41): “At this time, the azimuth detecting unit 13 acquires a locus representing peak level change for each azimuth by approximating the peak level change with time by a predetermined approximation scheme. The approximation scheme may be linear approximation using the least squares method, approximation using a quadratic or higher order function, or the like. When linear approximation is employed, a locus of peak level change can be obtained rapidly because of simple arithmetic processing. On the other hand, when a quadratic or higher order function is employed, the locus of level change can be realized with increased precision, since approximation of the shape of a directivity pattern can be approximated with increased precision while the complexity of arithmetic processing increases.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Nishimura to incorporate the feature of: adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a level of interaction between the mobile communication device and the one or more nodes in the network that is related to scanning trajectory guidance. Hoffman and Nishimura are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radar technology to detect objects. However, Hoffman fails to disclose a feature of adjusting the speed of data processing. This feature is disclosed by Nishimura. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Nishimura to incorporate the feature of: adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a level of interaction between the mobile communication device and the one or more nodes in the network that is related to scanning trajectory guidance as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 30 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 12, therefore claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US20170033469A1) in view of Lomnitz (US20210286070A1) and further in view of Goel (US11363599B1).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Hoffman and Lomnitz discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman does not teach “adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a threshold level of maximum acceptable processing latency “.
However, Goel in the analogous arts teaches: adjusting a speed of performance of the SAR image process based on a threshold level of maximum acceptable processing latency (Para 112: “As shown by the first and second graphs 601, 602, while maintaining a steady velocity of 35 MPH, the moving device may shorten stopping distance by decreasing the processing latency, which is driven mainly by a reduction in the perception time (t.sub.perception). Thus, the processing system's processing latency and operating frequency may be accurately adjusted based on moving device speed, or a target speed reflected in a processing latency vote by the control system (e.g., 140). Also, a processing latency of the processing system may be relaxed (e.g., from 0.05 sec. to 0.5 sec.), which conserves energy and operates more efficiently, if the processing system may achieve the minimum stopping distance (e.g., 100 feet) for a given moving device speed (e.g., 35 MPH) at a higher processing latency.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Goel to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement. Hoffman and Goel are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radar technology to detect objects. However, Hoffman fails to disclose a feature of allocating processing actions based on an evaluation of a criteria. This feature is disclosed by Goel. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman with Goel to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more criteria include a maximum latency requirement as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 31 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 13, therefore claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 on 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights