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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 56-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 56 and similarly claims 57, 67, 68 and 72, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “radar amplifier.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed “radar amplifier” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “radar amplifier” may either refer to a specialty amplifier explicitly configured for radar applications or the term may represent a generic amplifier simply applied to radar. As claimed it is unclear what the term explicitly refers to or how the “radar amplifier” differs from the previously claimed “power amplifier.” Review of the specification reveals at page 8 lines 15-18 “A radar amplifier 82 is connected between the transmit signal path 70 and receive signal path 80. The radar amplifier 82 takes the input from the transmit signal chain, e.g., before the PPA 72. The PPA 72 and PA 74 are turned off during radar operation, and the duplex switch 88 is placed in the receive position, connecting the receive signal path 80 to the antenna or antenna element 90;” However, the Examiner cannot find explicit clarification regarding the term “radar” amplifier. It suggested Applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “radar amplifier.” For examination purposes “radar amplifier” will be interpreted to refer to a generic amplifier applied to radar technology.
Regarding claim 56, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “an input of the radar amplifier is connected to the RF transmitter and the power amplifier.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the above limitation indicates that the both RF transmitter and power amplifier separately feed into the radar amplifier or if the radar amplifier is connected to the RF transmitter in parallel with the power amplifier. Review of the specification reveals at page 2 lines 14-15 “An input of the radar amplifier is connected to the RF transmitter” suggesting that only the RF transmitter feeds into the radar amplifier. For examination purposes the above limitation will be interpreted to mean that radar amplifier is connected to the RF transmitter in parallel with the power amplifier.
Regarding claim 62, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “wherein the impedance is between about 500 Ohms and about 5000 Ohms.” As claimed the term “about” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “about” is a relative term in the form of an approximation as defined by MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(A) and renders the claim indefinite. Review of the specification reveals at page 16 lines 35-36, “In some embodiments, the impedance is in the range from about 500 Ohms to about 5000
Ohms” however, the Examiner cant not find a clear example or teaching that can be used as a measure to define what range of is covered by the term. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the impedance is between 500 Ohms and 5000 Ohms”
Regarding claim 63 and similarly claims 64 and 66, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “the RF receiver input.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the RF receiver input”. For examination purposes the limitation “the RF receiver input” will be read “a RF receiver input.”
Regarding claim 65, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “the impedance is selected so that reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression is less than about 3 db.” As claimed the term “about” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “about” is a relative term in the form of an approximation as defined by MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(A) and renders the claim indefinite. Review of the specification reveals at page 17 lines 7-9 “In one example, the impedance 84 is selected so that reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression is less than about 3 dB;” however, the Examiner cant not find a clear example or teaching that can be used as a measure to define what range of is covered by the term. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the impedance is selected so that reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression is less than 3 db.”
Claims 57-71 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 56-59, 63, 70, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US2022349984A1) in view of Bouisse(US20200382069A1)
Regarding claim 56, AGARDH discloses
A front-end circuit for below noise radar in a wireless communication device, the front- end circuit (“The terminal UE1 may comprise a wireless chipset 313 including a radio transceiver for communicating with other entities of the radio communication network 100 “[0047]) comprising: a transmit signal path connecting a radio frequency (RF) transmitter to a transmit antenna (“The radio communication terminal UE1 is thus configured to act as a radar device, comprising the wireless communication chipset 313 including the transmitter 314” [0062]),
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of power amplifiers or impedance. Bouisse discloses, the transmit signal path including a power amplifier configured to amplify communication signals output by the RF transmitter during communication signal transmission (FIG.5, Part.132);a radar amplifier configured to amplify radar signals output by the RF transmitter during radar signal transmission (FIG.5, Part.538), wherein: an input of the radar amplifier is connected to the RF transmitter and the power amplifier (“ providing the second signal to a first peaking amplifier and a second peaking amplifier that are cascaded in a second circuit branch” [0016]); and an output of the radar amplifier is connected to the antenna through an impedance that reduces an amplitude of the radar signal (FIG.5, Part.144)
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of two amplifiers and impedance so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 57, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 56. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of amplifiers. Bouisse discloses wherein, the input of the radar amplifier is connected to the transmit signal path between the RF transmitter and the power amplifier (Fig.5, Part.538 & 510).
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of an amplifier so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 58, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 56 AGARDH discloses wherein, the transmit antenna comprises a shared antenna that is shared by the RF transmitter and a RF receiver that is connected to the shared antenna through a receive signal path (“ The low power level Pr enables full duplex, i.e. simultaneous transmit and receive” [0066]).
Regarding claim 59, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 58. AGARDH discloses, a duplex switch configured to connect the transmit signal path and receive signal path to the shared antenna, the duplex switch having a first position for connecting the transmit path to the shared antenna and a second position for connecting the receive signal path to the shared antenna (“a double port solution of the transceiver in the wireless communication chipset 313 may be employed for full duplexing.” [0091]).
Regarding claim 63, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 57. AGARDH discloses, […] reduce a transmitted radar signal below a signal level threshold at the RF receiver input during radar signal transmission so as to enable simultaneous reception of a communication signal by the RF receiver (“ The low power level Pr enables full duplex, i.e. simultaneous transmit and receive” [0066]).
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of impedance. Bouisse discloses wherein reducing the signal amplitude with resistance (FIG.5, Part.144).
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of using impedance to reduce signal amplitude so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 70, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 57. AGARDH discloses wherein, the front-end circuit is configured to receive a reflected radar signal simultaneously during radar signal transmission (“ The low power level Pr enables full duplex, i.e. simultaneous transmit and receive” [0066]).
Regarding claim 72, AGARDH discloses
A method implemented in a wireless communication device with radar capability of transmitting a low power spectral density radar signal, the method comprising: in a communication mode, coupling a communication signal output by a RF transmitter to a transmit antenna through a transmit signal path (“The terminal UE1 may comprise a wireless chipset 313 including a radio transceiver for communicating with other entities of the radio communication network 100 “[0047]) […]; and in a radar mode, coupling a radar signal output by the RF transmitter to the transmit antenna (“The radio communication terminal UE1 is thus configured to act as a radar device, comprising the wireless communication chipset 313 including the transmitter 314” [0062]),
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of power amplifiers or impedance. Bouisse discloses, through a radar amplifier having an input connected to the transmit signal path in front of the power amplifier (FIG.5, Part.132)and an output connected to the transmit antenna (“ providing the second signal to a first peaking amplifier and a second peaking amplifier that are cascaded in a second circuit branch” [0016]) through an impedance, wherein the impedance is configured to reduce an amplitude of the radar signal (FIG.5, Part.144)
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of two amplifiers and impedance so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 60-61, 64, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US2022349984A1) as modified by Bouisse(US20200382069A1) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of WATKINS (US 20230003832 A1)
Regarding claim 60, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 59. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not appear to explicitly disclose connecting the transmitting path to the receive path through an amplifier and impedance. WATKINS discloses wherein, the output of the radar amplifier (FIG.3, Part.301) is connected through the impedance (Fig.3, Part.305) to the receive signal path in front of the duplex switch (FIG.3, Part.302).
WATKINS teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse with the teachings of WATKINS to incorporate the features of connecting the output of the radar amplifier to the receive path through an impedance as to gain the advantage of reducing self-interference [0098, WATKINS]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 61, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and WATKINS disclose all the limitations of claim 60. AGARDH discloses wherein, the duplex switch is configured to be in the second position for radar signal transmission(“a double port solution of the transceiver in the wireless communication chipset 313 may be employed for full duplexing.” [0091]).
Regarding claim 64, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 57. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not appear to explicitly disclose compression threshold at the RF receiver input. WATKINS discloses wherein, the impedance is configured to reduce a transmitted radar signal below a compression threshold at the RF receiver input during radar signal transmission to reduce compression at the receiver (“ The Self-Interference Cancellation (SiC) circuit comprises a variable attenuator 305 connected to the coupled port (port 3) of the first directional coupler 302. The output of the coupled port (port 3) is a reference signal that is a coupled version of the transmit signal. The variable attenuator is configured to attenuate the reference signal.” [0064]).
WATKINS teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse with the teachings of WATKINS to incorporate the features of to reducing a transmitted radar signal below a compression threshold at the RF receiver input so as to gain the advantage of reducing self-interference [0098, WATKINS]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 71, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 70. AGARDH
discloses, a plurality of transmit antennas configured to transmit a radar signal and a receive antenna configured to receive a reflected radar signal (FIG.4, Part.316).
AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not appear to explicitly disclose canceling the transmitted radar signal at the receive antenna. WATKINS discloses wherein, the transmit antennas are configured such that the transmitted radar signal by the plurality of transmit antennas is at least partially canceled at the receive antenna (“If the attenuation and the phase shifts are determined appropriately, the coupled, attenuated, shifted version of the transmit signal cancels the leakage signal, thereby cancelling the self-interference.” [0074]).
WATKINS teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse with the teachings of WATKINS to incorporate the features of canceling the transmitted radar signal at the receive antenna to gain the advantage of reducing filter complexity. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US2022349984A1) as modified by Bouisse(US20200382069A1) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 20160065146 A1).
Regarding claim 62, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 57. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not explicitly disclose wherein the impedance is between about 500 Ohms and about 5000 Ohms. Zhu discloses wherein, the impedance is between about 500 Ohms and about 5000 Ohms (“the circuit 148 may be implemented as a low pass RC filter with a resistor RX (e.g., 1,000 ohms)” [0041]).
Zhu teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse with the teachings of Zhu to incorporate the features of wherein the impedance is between about 500 Ohms and about 5000 Ohms to gain the advantage of reducing self-interference [0098, WATKINS]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US2022349984A1) as modified by Bouisse(US20200382069A1) and further modified by WATKINS (US 20230003832 A1) as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Knadle(US 20070096919 A1)
Regarding claim 65, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and WATKINS disclose all the limitations of claim 64. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and WATKINS does not explicitly disclose wherein the reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression is less than about 3 db. Knadle discloses wherein, the impedance is selected so that reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression is less than about 3 dB (“A 2:1 VSWR equates to a return loss of -9.54 dB, and represents a worse case transmission loss of -0.51 dB.” [0045] & “The higher the return loss number (in -dB), the less reflection and the better the impedance match” [0043])
Knadle teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and WATKINS with the teachings of Knadle to incorporate the features of a reduction of the reflected radar signal due to compression being less than about 3 dB to gain the advantage of reducing self-interference [0098, WATKINS]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 66-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARDH(US20220349984A1) as modified by Bouisse(US20200382069A1) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 9369173 B1)
Regarding claim 66, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 56. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmit antenna and the receive antenna are different antennas. Yoon discloses wherein, the transmit antenna and the receive antenna are different antennas (FIG.3B, Parts.314, 316 & 318)
Yoon teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH as modified by Bouisse with the teachings of Yoon to incorporate the features of a transmit antenna and a receive antenna being different antennas to gain the advantage of transmission directionality [Col.3, Par.4, Yoon]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 67, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and Yoon disclose all the limitations of claim 66. AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of power amplifiers or impedance. Bouisse discloses wherein, the output of the radar amplifier is connected through the impedance to the transmit signal path following the power amplifier (FIG.5, Part.144)
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of two amplifiers and impedance so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 68, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse disclose all the limitations of claim 67. AGARDH as modified by Bouisse does not explicitly disclose a switch connected between the output of the radar amplifier and the impedance. Yoon discloses, a switch connected between the output of the radar amplifier and the impedance, the switch movable between an open position during radar signal transmission and a closed position during communication signal transmission to shunt an output of the radar amplifier to signal ground (FIG.4B, Part.468).
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of a switch connected between the output of the radar amplifier and the impedance so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 69, AGARDH as modified by Bouisse and Yoon disclose all the limitations of claim 66. . AGARDH discloses, […] reduce a transmitted radar signal below a signal level threshold at an input to the transmit antenna during radar signal transmission so as to enable simultaneous reception of a communication signal (“ The low power level Pr enables full duplex, i.e. simultaneous transmit and receive” [0066]).
AGARDH does not explicitly disclose the use of impedance. Bouisse discloses wherein reducing the signal amplitude with resistance (FIG.5, Part.144).
Bouisse teaches in the same field of radio wave transmission circuit design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AGARDH with the teachings of Bouisse to incorporate the features of using impedance to reduce signal amplitude so as to gain the advantage of improving efficiency [0016, Bouisse]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Tsfati(US 20190377075 A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0095] “ Example 1 is an apparatus of a wireless communication device, the apparatus comprising: radar circuitry configured to perform one or more proximity measurements.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights