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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Instances 220 and 230 in Fig. 11A are not detailed in the specification.
Instance 350 in Fig. 11B is not detailed in the specification.
Instance 450 in Fig. 11C is not detailed in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 49 and 59 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the correlating the correlating” is a typographical error and will be interpreted as “wherein the correlating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 50 and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “… based on at least one of signal rotation of the radar signal and frequency transfer” is grammatically incorrect, and will be interpreted as “… based on at least one of a signal rotation of the radar signal and a frequency transfer“. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical error in the phrase “… to detect a reflected radar signa, the …”. This phrase will be interpreted as “… to detect a reflected radar signal, the …. “. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 41-43, 45, 48, 51-53, 55, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20160216368 A1), hereinafter Phillips, in view of Agardh et al. (US 20220349984 A1), hereinafter Agardh.
Regarding claim 41, Phillips discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
A method implemented in a wireless communication device of detecting a radar signal, the method comprising (Phillips [0004] “Described herein are implementations of various technologies relating to adaptive frequency correction for pulse compression radar.”, further Phillips [0051] “Computing system 400 may be a conventional desktop, a handheld device”):
receiving the radar signalPhillips [0029] “The signal from the VCO may be output to the transmitter module 240.”)
correlating each of two or more parts of the radar signal received (Phillips [0030] “As noted above, to minimize the occurrence of range sidelobes, the pulse compression radar system 200 may be configured to have its transmitted signal be equivalent to a correlator reference signal, such that the signals have at least the same or substantially the same frequency.”; [0032] “the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be combined with the one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 at the first DDS 210 in order to produce the corrected transmitted signal from the system 200, where the one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 correspond to the correlator reference signal”); and
combining the partial correlation results (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal.” Note that said frequency coefficients are generated by comparison of the received signals to the reference signal, making the end result a combination of the partial correlation results.).
Phillips does not teach the limitation below. Agardh teaches,
receiving the radar signal in parts over multiple, discontinuous time periods (Agardh Fig. 6, Agardh [0041] “To obtain knowledge of the physical properties about the TO, radar probing is carried out, in which the terminal is configured to act as a radar transmitter to transmit radio signals in form of radar probing pulses, and to act as a radar receiver to sense receive properties of echoes of such radio signals.”, further Agardh [0077] “For radar signal transmission 140 during probing, in the probing period TP, which is smaller than or equal to the period T2, and occurs within the period T2”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. Both Phillips and Agardh are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose pulsed radar systems whereby the radar pulses are compared to reference signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of receiving a signal as disclosed by Phillips to be received in parts over a discontinuous time period as taught by Agardh. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Phillips in order to employ a different scheme for transmission during the probing period without risking saturation of the receiver (see paragraph [0016] of Agardh).
Regarding claim 42, Phillips in view of Agardh discloses the method of claim 41. Phillips fails to disclose the limitation below. Agardh discloses,
further comprising transmitting the parts of the radar signal between communication occasions (Agardh Fig. 6, further Agardh [0074] “In the example of FIG. 6, resources 61 scheduled for UL transmission by the terminal UE1 in the of time/frequency grid 60 are configured in a first time period T1, whereas a second time period T2 does not include any scheduled resources for uplink transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. By pausing the radar transmissions for communications transmissions, one may then reduce the effects of interference between the two, thereby improving system performance. The combination of Phillips and Agardh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to transmit communications signals between radar pulses in a sensing operation.
Regarding claim 43, Phillips in view of Agardh discloses the method of claim 42. Phillips fails to disclose the limitation below. Agardh discloses,
wherein transmitting the radar signal in parts between communication occasions comprises interrupting radar transmission for each of one or more communication occasions and resuming radar transmission following the communication occasion (Agardh Fig. 6, further Agardh [0080] “In such an embodiment, the terminal UE1 may make a brief interruption in radar probing during that or those UL resource(s) and then the transmission of repeated radar signals may be resumed with only a very short interruption.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, pulsed radar systems generally involve pulse trains, where a set of pulses are transmitted and received to build cumulative statistics regarding reflections. In order to avoid interference between the communications and radar transmissions of the mobile device, it is beneficial to avoid an overlap in their transmissions, and an obvious solution is to simply alternate between radar and communications signals as in the case of Agardh. The combination of Phillips and Agardh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to interrupt a radar pulse, then resume a radar transmission upon completion of a communications transmission.
Regarding claim 45, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 41. Phillips further teaches,
wherein receiving the radar signal in parts over multiple, discontinuous time periods comprises maintaining phase coherence across two or more of the discontinuous time periods (Phillips [0027] “The PLL circuit 230 may receive the output waveform from the DAC 220. As shown in FIG. 2, the PLL circuit 230 may include a phase detector 232, a loop filter 234, a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) 236, and down conversion circuitry 238. The phase detector 232 may be configured to compare two input signals and produce an error signal which is proportional to their phase difference.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PLL of Phillips (Phase-locked loop circuit) to maintain phase coherence across the decoherent time periods. Phillips teaches that maintaining phase coherence is important for comparison to a reference signal (Phillips [0016] “The transmitted signal may be equivalent to the correlator reference signal if the signals have the same, or substantially the same, amplitude shape, frequency, and phase.”). Thus, one could reasonably use the phase-locked loop circuit with a reasonable chance of success to maintain a phase coherence between discontinuous radar pulses.
Regarding claim 48, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 41. Phillips further teaches,
The method of claim 41, wherein combining the partial correlation results for the two or more discontinuous time periods to obtain a combined correlation result comprises summing the partial correlation results coherently or non-coherently for the two or more discontinuous time periods (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal. In one implementation, the system 200 may subtract the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 from frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to reduce and/or compensate for frequency errors caused by the PLL circuit 230, where the differences between the coefficients may be used as input to the first DDS 210. “).
Here, the “adaptive frequency coefficients” are interpreted as partial correlation results. Then, it is further disclosed that these results are combined to reduce errors caused by other parts of the radar method.
Regarding claim 51, Phillips discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
A wireless communication device with radar capability, the communication device comprising (Phillips [0047] “Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the various technologies described herein include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices”):
processing circuitry configured to detect a reflected radar signa, the processing circuitry being configured to (Phillips [0006] “In yet another implementation, a pulse compression radar system may include a processor and a memory. ”):
correlate each of two or more parts of the radar signal received in different ones of the discontinuous time periods with a reference signal to obtain partial correlation results (Phillips [0030] “As noted above, to minimize the occurrence of range sidelobes, the pulse compression radar system 200 may be configured to have its transmitted signal be equivalent to a correlator reference signal, such that the signals have at least the same or substantially the same frequency. ”); and
combine the partial correlation results for the two more discontinuous time periods to obtain a combined correlation result (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal. ” Note that said frequency coefficients are generated by comparison of the received signals to the reference signal, making the end result a combination of the partial correlation results.).
Phillips fails to disclose the limitations below. Agardh discloses,
communication circuitry configured for below noise, full-duplex radar (Agardh Fig. 6, further Agardh [0066] “The low power level Pr enables full duplex, i.e. simultaneous transmit and receive, without saturating the receiver and therefore a more complicated and costly duplexer system is not needed.”); and
receive the radar signal in parts over multiple, discontinuous time periods (Agardh, Fig. 5, further Agardh Abstract “execute radar probing (130) during a probing period, including to transmit a radar signal (140) using the transmitter and sense receive properties of a reflection (150) of the radar signal using the receiver; inhibit transmission of communication signals from the communication terminal during said probing period; and receive communication signals on the radio channel during said probing period.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. While Phillips discloses a pulsed radar method for a handheld device, it does not teach the use of communications signals and thus does not teach the use of a duplex radar. Agardh directly teaches the advantages of a below-noise full duplex radar, where it is disclosed that transmitting the radar signal with low power (i.e. below noise) between communications pulses is an economical method to combine a radar sensing and communications device. The combination of Phillips and Agardh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a sub-noise duplex radar in a pulsed radar system.
Regarding claim 52, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the wireless communications device of claim 51. Phillips does not teach the limitation below. Agardh teaches,
further comprising transmitting the parts of the radar signal between communication occasions (Agardh Fig. 6, further Agardh [0074] “In the example of FIG. 6, resources 61 scheduled for UL transmission by the terminal UE1 in the of time/frequency grid 60 are configured in a first time period T1, whereas a second time period T2 does not include any scheduled resources for uplink transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. By pausing the radar transmissions for communications transmissions, one may then reduce the effects of interference between the two, thereby improving system performance. The combination of Phillips and Agardh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to transmit communications signals between radar pulses in a sensing operation.
Regarding claim 53, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 42. Phillips does not disclose the limitation below. Agardh discloses,
wherein transmitting the radar signal in parts between communication occasions comprises interrupting radar transmission for each of one or more communication occasions and resuming radar transmission following the communication occasion (Agardh Fig. 6, further Agardh [0074] “In the example of FIG. 6, resources 61 scheduled for UL transmission by the terminal UE1 in the of time/frequency grid 60 are configured in a first time period T1, whereas a second time period T2 does not include any scheduled resources for uplink transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agardh into the invention of Phillips. As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, pulsed radar systems generally involve pulse trains, where a set of pulses are transmitted and received to build cumulative statistics regarding reflections. In order to avoid interference between the communications and radar transmissions of the mobile device, it is beneficial to avoid an overlap in their transmissions, and an obvious solution is to simply alternate between radar and communications signals as in the case of Agardh. The combination of Phillips and Agardh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to interrupt a radar pulse, then resume a radar transmission upon completion of a communications transmission.
Regarding claim 58, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the wireless communication device of claim 51. Phillips further teaches,
wherein combining the partial correlation results for the two or more discontinuous time periods to obtain a combined correlation result comprises summing the partial correlation results coherently or non-coherently for the two or more discontinuous time periods (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal. In one implementation, the system 200 may subtract the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 from frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to reduce and/or compensate for frequency errors caused by the PLL circuit 230, where the differences between the coefficients may be used as input to the first DDS 210. “).
Here, the “adaptive frequency coefficients” are interpreted as partial correlation results. Then, it is further disclosed that these results are combined to reduce errors caused by other parts of the radar method.
Claim(s) 44 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20160216368 A1), hereinafter Phillips, in view of Agardh et al. (US 20220349984 A1), hereinafter Agardh, and further in view of Hulbert et al. (GB 2428921 A1), hereinafter Hulbert.
Regarding claim 44, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 41 and does not teach the limitation below. Hulbert teaches,
where at least one of the discontinuous time periods overlaps a communication session (Hulbert Fig. 5, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
173
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hulbert into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. The set of Phillips, Agardh and Hulbert are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose pulsed radar systems for use in communications devices. Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the alternating use of a duplexed radar and a communications transmission. While it does not teach the simultaneous transmission of communications and radar signals, there is nothing preventing the device from being used in this manner, which Hulbert shows explicitly. This would be applicable in cases where one would desire greater frequency of data transmission or a higher sampling rate of radar, at the expense of potential interference. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Hulbert would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to emit overlapping radar and communications transmissions in a communications device.
Regarding claim 54, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the wireless communications device of claim 41 and does not teach the limitation below. Hulbert teaches:
The wireless communication device of claim 51, where at least one of the discontinuous time periods overlaps a communication session (Hulbert Fig. 5, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
173
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hulbert into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. The set of Phillips, Agardh and Hulbert are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose pulsed radar systems for use in communications devices. Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the alternating use of a duplexed radar and a communications transmission. While it does not teach the simultaneous transmission of communications and radar signals, there is nothing preventing the device from being used in this manner, which Hulbert shows explicitly. This would be applicable in cases where one would desire greater frequency of data transmission or a higher sampling rate of radar, at the expense of potential interference. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Hulbert would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to emit overlapping radar and communications transmissions in a communications device.
Claim(s) 46 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20160216368 A1), hereinafter Phillips, in view of Agardh et al. (US 20220349984 A1), hereinafter Agardh, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20120218139 A1), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 46, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 41. Phillips in view of Agardh fails to teach the limitation below.
Suzuki teaches,
wherein correlating each of two or more parts of the radar signal received in different ones of the discontinuous time periods with a reference signal to obtain partial correlation results comprises phase-coherent correlation or amplitude only correlation (Suzuki [0016] “A correlation filter according to an embodiment is used in a radar device including an adaptive array antenna configured to form a received synthetic beam from a received signal outputted by an antenna array having a plurality of antenna elements arranged in an array, in such a way that an adaptive weight for a phase and amplitude of the received signal is applied to the received signal to nullify a gain in a direction other than an arrival direction of a target signal which is a reflected signal of a radar pulse reflected from a target and is contained in the received signal. The correlation filter includes coefficient calculating means and coefficient applying means. With use of a reference signal being a sample value of a transmission waveform of a radar pulse transmitted by the radar device, the coefficient calculating means calculates in advance a filter coefficient for suppressing a component correlating with the target signal in the received signal. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Suzuki into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. The set of Phillips, Agardh, and Suzuki are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose methods for processing pulsed radar systems. As Phillips already teaches the correlation of a reference and received signal, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one needs a quantity of the signals to correlate. Suzuki directly suggests said quantities, stating that phase (coherence) and amplitude can be independently weighted in said correlation with a reference signal, meaning that one could use the known technique of Suzuki to achieve the results in the claim. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to calculate a correlation of a signal and reference signal based upon a phase-coherent correlation or an amplitude.
Regarding claim 56, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the wireless communication device of claim 51. Phillips in view of Agardh fails to teach the limitation below.
Suzuki teaches,
wherein correlating each of two or more parts of the radar signal received in different ones of the discontinuous time periods with a reference signal to obtain partial correlation results comprises phase-coherent correlation or amplitude only correlation. (Suzuki [0016] “A correlation filter according to an embodiment is used in a radar device including an adaptive array antenna configured to form a received synthetic beam from a received signal outputted by an antenna array having a plurality of antenna elements arranged in an array, in such a way that an adaptive weight for a phase and amplitude of the received signal is applied to the received signal to nullify a gain in a direction other than an arrival direction of a target signal which is a reflected signal of a radar pulse reflected from a target and is contained in the received signal. The correlation filter includes coefficient calculating means and coefficient applying means. With use of a reference signal being a sample value of a transmission waveform of a radar pulse transmitted by the radar device, the coefficient calculating means calculates in advance a filter coefficient for suppressing a component correlating with the target signal in the received signal. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Suzuki into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. As Phillips already teaches the correlation of a reference and received signal, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one needs a quantity of the signals to correlate. Suzuki directly suggests said quantities, stating that phase (coherence) and amplitude can be independently weighted in said correlation with a reference signal, meaning that one could use the known technique of Suzuki to achieve the results in the claim. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to calculate a correlation of a signal and reference signal based upon a phase-coherent correlation or an amplitude.
Claim(s) 49-50 and 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20160216368 A1), hereinafter Phillips, in view of Agardh et al. (US 20220349984 A1), hereinafter Agardh, and further in view of Savci, Kubilay, and Ahmet Yasin Erdoğan. "Digital correlator: A scalable and efficient FPGA implementation for radar receivers." 2019 Signal Processing Symposium (SPSympo). IEEE, 2019, hereinafter Savci.
Regarding claim 49, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the method of claim 41. Phillips in view of Agardh fails to teach the limitation below. Savci teaches,
wherein the correlating the correlating is performed according to a correlation configuration including a correlation length and a coherent block size (Savci et al. Pg. 210 “The real-time correlator operation is illustrated in the timeline in Fig.6 The radar return signal along with the reference signal belonging to the consecutive pulse repetition intervals go into the correlator pipe and the correlator streams the output with a deterministic processing time delay. This latency is calculated to be 33534 clock (125 MHz) cycles in the proposed design however it can change if the FFT/IFFT lengths are customized for the desired waveform length or different radar range coverage. ” Here the examiner notes that FFT/IFFT length is equivalent to a correlation length and a block size in the context of the disclosure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Savci into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. The set of Phillips, Agardh, Savci are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose processing methods for pulsed radar systems. Phillips in view of Agardh fail to disclose the concept of a correlation length, despite the fact that this concept is known within the art. Savci discloses a similar radar processing system to the claimed invention, where a specific block size is used to determine radar correlations. A coherent block size or a correlation length is a necessary quantity to define if one desires to correlate phase-coherent pulses, as it defines the maximal number of pulses that can be correlated in a given period, and is known to those in the art and implemented by Savci. Phillips also discusses the idea of phase-locking and phase drift between pulses, as this is inevitable in real radar systems and requires the definition or observation of a coherence length to assign a maximal number of pulses that can be coherently correlated. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Savci would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a coherent block size or a coherence length in the correlation of a set of radar pulses and a reference signal.
Regarding claim 50, Phillips in view of Agardh, and further in view of Savci, discloses the method of claim 49. Phillips further discloses,
further comprising adjusting the correlation configuration based on at least one of signal rotation of the radar signal and frequency transfer function of the radar signal path (Phillips [0027] “The PLL circuit 230 may receive the output waveform from the DAC 220. As shown in FIG. 2, the PLL circuit 230 may include a phase detector 232, a loop filter 234, a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) 236, and down conversion circuitry 238. The phase detector 232 may be configured to compare two input signals and produce an error signal which is proportional to their phase difference. The error signal is then low-pass filtered via the loop filter 234, and used to drive the VCO 236, which creates an output phase.” Here a phase shift is known as a signal rotation to those of ordinary skill in the art.).
Phillips discloses the adjustment of a signal correlation based upon a phase shift i.e. a signal rotation.
Regarding claim 59, Phillips in view of Agardh teaches the wireless communication device of claim 51. Phillips in view of Agardh fails to teach the limitation below. Savci teaches,
wherein the correlating the correlating is performed according to a correlation configuration including a correlation length and a coherent block size (Savci et al. Pg. 210 “The real-time correlator operation is illustrated in the timeline in Fig.6 The radar return signal along with the reference signal belonging to the consecutive pulse repetition intervals go into the correlator pipe and the correlator streams the output with a deterministic processing time delay. This latency is calculated to be 33534 clock (125 MHz) cycles in the proposed design however it can change if the FFT/IFFT lengths are customized for the desired waveform length or different radar range coverage. ” Here the examiner notes that FFT/IFFT length is equivalent to a correlation length and a block size in the context of the disclosure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Savci into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh. Phillips in view of Agardh fail to disclose the concept of a correlation length, despite the fact that this concept is known within the art. Savci discloses a similar radar processing system to the claimed invention, where a specific block size is used to determine radar correlations. A coherent block size or a correlation length is a necessary quantity to define if one desires to correlate phase-coherent pulses, as it defines the maximal number of pulses that can be correlated in a given period, and is known to those in the art and implemented by Savci. Phillips also discusses the idea of phase-locking and phase drift between pulses, as this is inevitable in real radar systems and requires the definition or observation of a coherence length to assign a maximal number of pulses that can be coherently correlated. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Savci would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a coherent block size or a coherence length in the correlation of a set of radar pulses and a reference signal.
Regarding claim 60, Phillips in view of Agardh, and further in view of Savci, discloses the method of claim 49. Phillips further discloses,
further comprising adjusting the correlation configuration based on at least one of signal rotation of the radar signal and frequency transfer function of the radar signal path (Phillips [0027] “The PLL circuit 230 may receive the output waveform from the DAC 220. As shown in FIG. 2, the PLL circuit 230 may include a phase detector 232, a loop filter 234, a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) 236, and down conversion circuitry 238. The phase detector 232 may be configured to compare two input signals and produce an error signal which is proportional to their phase difference. The error signal is then low-pass filtered via the loop filter 234, and used to drive the VCO 236, which creates an output phase.” Here a phase shift is known as a signal rotation to those of ordinary skill in the art.).
Phillips discloses the adjustment of a signal correlation based upon a phase shift i.e. a signal rotation.
Claim(s) 47 and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20160216368 A1), hereinafter Phillips, in view of Agardh et al. (US 20220349984 A1), hereinafter Agardh, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20120218139 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and further in view of Fukushima et al. (US 20190101635 A1), hereinafter Fukushima.
Regarding claim 47, Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is cross-through]:
The method of claim 46,
accumulating products of the multiplications to obtain the partial correlation result for the time period (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal. ” Note that said frequency coefficients are generated by comparison of the received signals to the reference signal, making the end result a combination of the partial correlation results.
Phillips has already taught that results may be accumulated to produce a final result, counting statistics are also well-known within the art.).
Fukushima discloses,
wherein correlating each of two or more parts of the radar signal comprises, for each time period, multiplying samples of the radar signal received in the time period with corresponding reference samples in the reference signal (Fukushima [0027] “The multiplication circuits 73-#1 to 73-#M, respectively, multiply signals from the received signal FET units 71-#1 to 71-#M by complex conjugates of signals from the reference signal FET units 72-#1 to 72-#M. The complex-window-function multiplication circuits 74-#1 to 74-#M, respectively, multiply signals from the multiplication circuits 73-#1 to 73-#M by window functions defining notches neighboring false peaks occurring from the Doppler frequency.”)
according to a time delay hypothesis for a certain target distance and (Fukushima [0038] The complex window function multiplication signals w.sub.m, 1zl, m, 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N from the complex-window-function multiplication circuits 74-#1 to 74-#M are transmitted to the respective IFFT units 75-#1 to 75-#M. The IFFT units 75-#1 to 75-#M perform IFFTs on the complex window function multiplication signals w.sub.m, 1zl, m 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N to generate pulse-compressed signals η.sub.l, m, 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N (step ST7). The number n in η.sub.l, m, n represents the number of the range bin of which the unit is a distance resolution determined from, for example, a transmission-frequency bandwidth B.
Here, it is motivated that a distance resolution is determined by a number of range bins. The phrase “time delay hypothesis” in the claim within the broadest reasonable interpretation would include adjustment of the bin size / quantity by an expected target distance. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Fukushima into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki. The set of Phillips, Agardh, Suzuki, and Fukushima are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose processing methods for pulsed radar systems. The invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki discloses the correlation of a reference and a measured radar signal, but does not specifically disclose the correlation being performed by a multiplication of the two signals. However, the multiplication of in-phase signals is well-known within the art as a method of evaluating a correlation (i.e. overlapping signals will produce a large output, anticorrelated signals will produce a negative output, and uncorrelated signals will produce a near zero output.) As this is a common method of correlation evaluation, this would be a natural way to implement the correlation evaluation described in Phillips or Suzuki. Additionally, the block size of the expected radar pulse in Fukushima is taught to be dependent upon the required distance resolution of the measurement (this is related to a time delay hypothesis as the distance may be calculated through time-of-flight methods). The adjustment of a pulse size / block size based on physical requirements, such as a desired time-delay resolution, is beneficial to optimize the balance of radar spatial resolution and data transfer rate in the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki, and further in view of Fukushima, would be obvious with a reasonable chance of success to evaluate a correlation of a radar signal and a reference signal by multiplying the signals, while incorporating the expected time delay of a target at a particular distance.
Regarding claim 56, Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is cross-through]:
The wireless communication device of claim 56,
accumulating products of the multiplications to obtain the partial correlation result for the time period (Phillips [0038] “Once generated, the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 may be stored in memory, as noted above. With the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 stored in memory, the system 200 may be run again, where the system 200 combines the adaptive frequency coefficients 290 with one or more frequency sweep coefficients 280 in order to produce a corrected transmitted signal. ” Note that said frequency coefficients are generated by comparison of the received signals to the reference signal, making the end result a combination of the partial correlation results.
Phillips has already taught that results may be accumulated to produce a final result, counting statistics are also well-known within the art.).
Fukushima discloses,
wherein correlating each of two or more parts of the radar signal comprises, for each time period, multiplying samples of the radar signal received in the time period with corresponding reference samples in the reference signal (Fukushima [0027] “The multiplication circuits 73-#1 to 73-#M, respectively, multiply signals from the received signal FET units 71-#1 to 71-#M by complex conjugates of signals from the reference signal FET units 72-#1 to 72-#M. The complex-window-function multiplication circuits 74-#1 to 74-#M, respectively, multiply signals from the multiplication circuits 73-#1 to 73-#M by window functions defining notches neighboring false peaks occurring from the Doppler frequency.”)
according to a time delay hypothesis for a certain target distance and (Fukushima [0038] The complex window function multiplication signals w.sub.m, 1zl, m, 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N from the complex-window-function multiplication circuits 74-#1 to 74-#M are transmitted to the respective IFFT units 75-#1 to 75-#M. The IFFT units 75-#1 to 75-#M perform IFFTs on the complex window function multiplication signals w.sub.m, 1zl, m 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N to generate pulse-compressed signals η.sub.l, m, 1, . . . , w.sub.m, Nzl, m, N (step ST7). The number n in η.sub.l, m, n represents the number of the range bin of which the unit is a distance resolution determined from, for example, a transmission-frequency bandwidth B.
Here, it is motivated that a distance resolution is determined by a number of range bins. The phrase “time delay hypothesis” in the claim within the broadest reasonable interpretation would include adjustment of the bin size / quantity by an expected target distance. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Fukushima into the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki. The set of Phillips, Agardh, Suzuki, and Fukushima are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose processing methods for pulsed radar systems. The invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki discloses the correlation of a reference and a measured radar signal, but does not specifically disclose the correlation being performed by a multiplication of the two signals. However, the multiplication of in-phase signals is well-known within the art as a method of evaluating a correlation (i.e. overlapping signals will produce a large output, anticorrelated signals will produce a negative output, and uncorrelated signals will produce a near zero output.) As this is a common method of correlation evaluation, this would be a natural way to implement the correlation evaluation described in Phillips or Suzuki. Additionally, the block size of the expected radar pulse in Fukushima is taught to be dependent upon the required distance resolution of the measurement (this is related to a time delay hypothesis as the distance may be calculated through time-of-flight methods). The adjustment of a pulse size / block size based on physical requirements, such as a desired time-delay resolution, is beneficial to optimize the balance of radar spatial resolution and data transfer rate in the invention of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki. The combination of Phillips in view of Agardh and Suzuki, and further in view of Fukushima, would be obvious with a reasonable chance of success to evaluate a correlation of a radar signal and a reference signal by multiplying the signals, while incorporating the expected time delay of a target at a particular distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/Thomas James Halloran/
Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights