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
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 and 02/12/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 (line 8) recites “within the frame”, which should recite “within the same frame”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a processor system coupled to the first and second radar sensor and configured to” performing the function of transmitting a first plurality of chirps as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “chirps from the first radar” in line 17. It is unclear if it is referring to the first radar sensor, the first radar signal or if it is the first instance of a first radar. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite as “the first radar sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 7 recites the limitation “is within the same time slot” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the timeslot refers to the chirp start and end time of each of the second plurality of chirps recited earlier in the claim or if it refers to the overall timeslot in which all the second plurality of chirps are transmitted. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “is transmitted within a time slot of the transmitted second plurality of chirps” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation “time slot” recited in claim 1 and 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 8-12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7.
Claims 2 and 8 recites the limitation “the timing” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are multiple instances of timings recited in claim 1 such as a frame, a chirp start and end time of each of the plurality of first and second chirps, and a time slot. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “a timing” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation “timing” recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 inherit the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claim 9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 8.
Claims 3 and 9 recites the limitation “the transmission timing” in the last line. It is unclear which “timing” is referred here. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to read as, “the transmitting of the first plurality of chirps and the second plurality of chirps”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 inherit the deficiencies of claim 3.
Claim 12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 9.
Claims 4 and 10 recites the limitation “the same intermediate frequency” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “a same intermediate frequency” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation appearing as the first instance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “The radar system of claim 9”. It is unclear if claim 12 is directed to a system or if it is directed to a method due it its dependency to claims 7-9. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the claim 12 to read as, “The method of claim 9”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Engewald et al. (US 2021/0055413 A1), hereinafter Engewald.
Regarding claim 1, Engewald discloses,
A radar system for a vehicle, comprising: (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0025] and [0059], “…FIG. 4 shows a representation of a vehicle including multiple sensors…”)
a first radar sensor configured to transmit and receive a first radar signal in a frame; (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and paragraph [0036], “…FIG. 1 shows a temporal representation of a frequency domain 100, in which multiple sensors are each active simultaneously according to one exemplary embodiment. The sensors in this case are radar sensors. Frequency domain 100 is therefore a small section of an electromagnetic spectrum…”. Further see paragraph [0047], “…a first one of the sensors begins to transmit…”)
a second radar sensor configured to transmit and receive a second radar signal in the same frame as the first radar signal; (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4 and paragraph [0036], “…FIG. 1 shows a temporal representation of a frequency domain 100, in which multiple sensors are each active simultaneously according to one exemplary embodiment. The sensors in this case are radar sensors. Frequency domain 100 is therefore a small section of an electromagnetic spectrum…”. Further see paragraph [0047], “…A second one of the sensors begins to transmit…”. Additionally, see paragraph [0037], “…At least two of the sensors transmit simultaneously at a transmission point in time t…”)
a processor system coupled to the first and second radar sensor and configured to: (see paragraph [0018], “…The device may be an electrical device including at least one processing unit for processing signals or data…”)
transmit a first plurality of chirps by the first radar sensor and a second plurality of chirps by the second radar sensor, each chirp having a chirp start time, a chirp end time, and a chirp frequency band with a chirp start frequency and a chirp end frequency, wherein each chirp has a different frequency band, and wherein the first plurality of chirps are interleaved with the second plurality of chirps such that for each chirp within the frame: (see Fig. 2 (elements 200 and 202) and paragraph [0041], “…FIG. 2 shows a representation of a synchronization of at least two sensors in the same frequency domain 100…”, and “…Transmission takes place in parallel in at least two of frequency sub-bands 200. In this case, at least two sensors each transmit on instantaneous frequencies separated by at least the frequency gap at one transmission point in time…”. Further see paragraph [0042], “…The sensors transmit in different frequency sub-bands 200…”. Additionally, see Fig. 3 (element 208) and paragraphs [0046]-[0047])
the chirp start frequency of each of the second plurality of chirps is between the chirp start frequency and chirp end frequency of each of the first plurality of chirps from the first radar, (see Fig. 2 (elements 200, 204, 208) and paragraphs [0041]-[0045], “…frequency domain 100 is divided here into at least four partially overlapping frequency sub-bands 200.…”)
the chirp end frequency of each of the first plurality of chirps is between the chirp start frequency and chirp end frequency of each of the second plurality of chirps, and (see Fig. 2 (elements 200, 204, 208) and paragraphs [0041]-[0045], “…frequency domain 100 is divided here into at least four partially overlapping frequency sub-bands 200.…”)
at least a portion of each of the first plurality of chirps is within the same time slot as the second plurality of chirps. (see Fig. 2 (element 202) and 3 (element 106). Further see paragraphs [0041]-[0047], “…For one partial modulation time period 202, one sensor each in this exemplary embodiment transmits its signal in one of frequency sub-bands 200…” and “…frequency domain 100 is divided here into at least four partially overlapping frequency sub-bands 200…”)
Regarding claim 2, Engewald, as shown above, discloses claim 1.
Engewald further discloses,
wherein the timing of the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor is synchronized. (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041], “…FIG. 2 shows a representation of a synchronization of at least two sensors…”. Further see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0046], “…FIG. 3 shows a representation of a synchronization of a plurality of sensors according to one exemplary embodiment…”)
Regarding claim 4, Engewald, as shown above, discloses claim 1.
Engewald further discloses,
wherein the first radar signal and second radar signal have the same intermediate frequency. (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041], “…FIG. 2 shows a representation of a synchronization of at least two sensors in the same frequency domain 100…”)
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 is directed to a method.
Claim 7 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 7 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 is directed to a method.
Claim 8 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2 which is directed towards a system. Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 is directed to a method.
Claim 10 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4 which is directed towards a system. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engewald et al. (US 2021/0055413 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0116540 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Engewald, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wang further teaches,
wherein the timing of the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor are determined by a timing control mechanism employing Generalized Precision Time Protocol (gPTP) to synchronize the transmission timing of the first plurality of chirps and the second plurality of chirps. (see paragraph [0080], “…Each of the slave embedded systems 504a to 504N being able to communicate with the master embedded system 502 via the high-speed interface may allow data to be communicated without the delays incurred through use of a traditional generalized precision time protocol (e.g., IEEE 1588/gPTP)…” of Wang)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the
invention of Engewald. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention
as they both disclose techniques for detecting objects using radar on a vehicle. Engewald discloses in paragraph [0028], “…The approach presented herein provides an example method for the synchronization of multiple radar sensors in a network of sensors…” and in paragraph [0018] mentions ‘communication interface’ as well as ’communication protocol’. Therefore, Engewald mentions using synchronization of sensors and communication interface but fails to explicitly disclose timing control mechanism such as Generalized Precision Time Protocol (gPTP). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the synchronization of sensors as disclosed by Engewald by incorporating the Generalized Precision Time Protocol (gPTP) as taught by Wang. The combination of Engewald in view of Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order for two sensors to communicate data through an interface. (see paragraphs [0024] and [0080] of Wang).
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 is directed to a method.
Claim 9 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3 which is directed towards a system. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engewald et al. (US 2021/0055413 A1), in view of Yokev et al. (US 2021/0055734 A1), hereinafter Yokev.
Regarding claim 5, Engewald, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Yokev further teaches,
wherein the first radar signal and second radar signal further comprise a stepped frequency pulse waveform characterized by a series of pulses, each pulse having a frequency incrementally different from the preceding pulse to cover a predetermined frequency band. (see Fig. 6A and paragraph [0046], “…FIG. 6A is a signal graph illustrating the stepped frequency waveform of this radar type's Tx signal…” of Yokev)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yokev into the
invention of Engewald. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention
as they both disclose techniques for detecting objects using radar on a vehicle. Engewald discloses in paragraph [0054], “…FIGS. 2 and 3 show signal profiles of multiple sensors of a vehicle…”. Therefore, Engewald mentions signal profiles but fails to explicitly disclose the type of signal/waveform used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal profile as disclosed by Engewald by incorporating the stepped frequency waveform as taught by Yokev. The combination of Engewald in view of Yokev would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use different types of radar for different functions e.g., pulsed radars are used for generating alerts. (see paragraphs [0020] and [0098] of Yokev).
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 is directed to a method.
Claim 11 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5 which is directed towards a system. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engewald et al. (US 2021/0055413 A1), in view of Klar et al. (US 11747459 B2), hereinafter Klar.
Regarding claim 6, Engewald, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Klar further teaches,
wherein the timing control mechanism maintains a clock accuracy of <1 microsecond between the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor. (see col 4, lines 15-23, “…The synchronization is based substantially on a synchronization of the reference oscillators (not shown) of radar sensors 10, 20. Each radar sensor 10, 20 has a quartz oscillator, and via a communication interface (e.g., Ethernet; not shown), the deviation from a reference frequency is determined regularly via timestamps. Here, Ethernet has the advantage that, with PTP (Precision Time Protocol), it provides a corresponding standard that, with hardware support, enables a time synchronization in the region of 10 ns…”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Klar into the
invention of Engewald. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention
as they both disclose techniques for detecting objects using radar on a vehicle. Engewald discloses in paragraph [0028], “…The approach presented herein provides an example method for the synchronization of multiple radar sensors in a network of sensors…”. Therefore, Engewald mentions synchronization of sensors but fails to explicitly disclose timing control mechanism and accuracy of the clock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the synchronization of sensors as disclosed by Engewald by incorporating the timing control mechanism and 10 ns clock accuracy as taught by Klar. The combination of Engewald in view of Klar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize synchronization errors and improve the distance estimate. (see col 4, lines 40-45 of Klar).
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 is directed to a method.
Claim 12 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6 which is directed towards a system. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kuehnle et al. (US 10545227 B2): discloses a radar which includes transmitting a ramp-like frequency-modulated transmission signal whose modulation pattern includes multiple sequences of ramps having an identical ramp slope, which alternately follow each other, the sequences having a frequency offset and a time offset with respect to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMISH P. HATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9508. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 8.30 am to 5.30 pm 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, 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.
/NIMISH P. HATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights