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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1-6-2025, 5-5-2025, 8-12-2025 and 9-24-2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 16 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.
As per claim 1, the second use of the term “comprising” creates double open ended claim language such that the meets and bound of the claim cannot be readily ascertained. The examiner recommends the second instance of “comprising” be removed.
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16, 17 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0128654, published April 28, 2022.
As per claims 1 and 17, Rosu discloses a signal processing method applied to a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar having at least two receiving channels with unequal path lengths, the at least two receiving channels comprising a reference receiving channel and at least one additional receiving channel having a path length difference relative to the reference receiving channel; wherein for any one of the receiving channels (Rosu, Fig. 1 and ¶21 using FMCW), the method comprises steps of:
processing an echo signal received by the receiving channel to obtain a digital baseband signal; acquiring an echo signal received by the reference channel according to a time delay produced by a feeding path length of a reference receiving antenna corresponding to the reference receiving channel and a time delay produced by a reference RXLO length corresponding to the reference receiving antenna; generating an echo signal received by a receiving channel i according to a time delay produced by a feeding path length of a receiving antenna i corresponding to the receiving channel i and a time delay produced by a length corresponding to the receiving antenna i, and the echo signal received by the reference channel; and processing the echo signal received by the receiving channel i and the echo signal received by the reference receiving channel to obtain a digital baseband signal of the receiving antenna i at the receiving end and a digital baseband signal of the reference receiving antenna at the receiving end (Rosu, ¶41-42 using a reference path and ¶96 adjusting for path lengths);
and compensating the digital baseband signal obtained after the processing based on the path length difference of the receiving channel relative to the reference receiving channel and frequency information pertaining to a transmitted signal corresponding to the received echo wherein the unequal path lengths comprise: unequal feeding path lengths of receiving antennas, and/or unequal RXLO lengths (length from a local oscillator to a mixer of each receiving channel) (Rosu, ¶96 using the coupling calibration matrix).
Rosu fails to expressly disclose compensating the baseband signal after processing however it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine when to adjust/compensate the data based on ease of processing. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to compensate, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Rosu in providing a correctly calibrated signal.
As per claim 3, Rosu further discloses the signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the frequency information pertaining to the transmitted signal corresponding to the received echo signal comprises a bandwidth of frequency sweep, a period of frequency sweep, and/or a center frequency of frequency sweep (Rosu, ¶26 using beat frequency and FMCW).
As per claim 16, Rosu further discloses a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored therein, wherein the computer-executable instructions are used for implementing the signal processing method according to claim 1 (Rosu, ¶76).
As per claims 35-37, Rosu further discloses an integrated circuit on a communication device on a device body (Rosu, ¶16 and 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646