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 statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Szaj (US 20100141504 A1) in view of Sakamoto (US 20080231496 A1) and, for cases depending from base claim 13 only, in further view of Smith (US 20180120842 A1).
As to claims 1 and 13, Szaj discloses a mobile platform comprising:
a microwave radar including:
an antenna device (Fig. 1 item 13, 17); and
a radar controller in communication with the antenna device (Fig. 1 items 1, 7), and configured to:
control the antenna device to transmit a microwave transmission signal and obtain a received signal, the microwave transmission signal and the received signal both being trapezoidal modulation waveforms, and one cycle of the trapezoidal modulation waveform including a frequency rising part, a frequency falling part, and a fixed frequency part (Fig. 4);
obtain an intermediate frequency signal mixed by a frequency of the microwave transmission signal and the received signal to the radar controller (Fig. 4 items 23, 21),
and determine whether the received signal is an interference signal based on the intermediate frequency signal (Para. 13), including:
determining change information of a signal frequency and a signal amplitude of the intermediate frequency signal based on the intermediate frequency signal; and determining whether the received signal is the interference signal based on the change information of the signal frequency and the signal amplitude of the intermediate frequency signal (Paras. 13 & 18 appear to suggest this feature.); and
a controller in communication with the microwave radar, and configured to: determine coordinate information of a detection target corresponding to the received signal in response to the received signal being not the interference signal; and update a trajectory of the mobile platform based on the coordinate information of the detection target (Not taught.).
The Examiner believes that Szaj at Paras. 13 and 18 appears to suggest the features with respect to determining interference characteristics based on changes in the transmitted/received signal. The Examiner will introduce a secondary reference to better teach said features.
In the same field of endeavor, Sakamoto teaches that interference affects the frequency and amplitude of the transmitted/received signal. see Sakamoto Paras. 38 & 142.
In view of the teachings of Sakamoto it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to use changes in frequency and amplitude to better determine the existence and characteristics of any interference in order to improve detection of said any interference and improved ability to avoid and/or filter said any interference.
Szaj does not teach a mobile vehicle that navigates based on coordinate of a true object in response to said true object being determined not to be interference.
In the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches that autonomous vehicle navigates based on distinguishing false targets from true targets. See Smith Paras. 10, 15 and 35.
In view of the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to differentiate between false objects and true objects in order to more accurately navigate thereby improving safety.
Note that Smith only applies to claims for which the base claim is claim 13.
As to claims 2 and 14, Szaj in view of Sakamoto and Smith teach the mobile platform of claim 13, wherein the radar controller is further configured to: determine the received signal is the interference signal in response to a change state of the signal frequency of the received signal being gradually decreasing and then gradually increasing, and a change state of the signal amplitude being gradually increasing and then gradually decreasing (Szaj Fig. 12 up and down frequencies and as modified by Sakamoto.).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Szaj in view of Sakamoto and Smith (for cases depending from base claim 13 only) and in further view of Richards (US 20020061080 A1).
As to claims 3 and 15, Szaj in view of Sakamoto and Smith does not teach the mobile platform of claim 2 and 13, wherein the radar controller is further configured to: obtain signal amplitude information of N sampling points of the intermediate frequency signal; select P extreme value points based on the signal amplitude information of the N sapling points, P being a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than N; and determine whether the received signal is the interference signal based on index values of the P extreme value points.
In the same field of endeavor, Richards “The exemplary interference phase illustrated in waveform plots (f) and (g) of FIG. 9 causes an interference maximum positive amplitude peak (and thus, a gradient maximum) at time t.sub.NS and a maximum negative amplitude peak (and thus, a gradient minimum) at time t.sub.DS (Para. 253).”
In view of the teachings of Richards, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to look for positive and negative peak in order to differentiate between objects of interest and interference because many types of interference, e.g., other radars, will have positive and negative peaks, thus improving accuracy.
As to claims 4 and 16, Szaj in view of Sakamota, Smith and Richards teach the mobile platform of claim 3 and 15, wherein the radar controller is further configured to: eliminate the interference signal in response to determining that the received signal is the interference signal (Szaj Para. 13; Smith Para. 47; Richards Para. 26. It would be obvious to remove or reduce false objects or interference to improve accuracy and safety).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Szaj in view of Sakamoto, Smith (for cases depending from base claim 13 only), Richards and in further view of Kim (US 20160223645 A1).
As to claim 11, Szaj in view of Sakamoto, Richards and Smith does not teach the microwave radar of claim 1, wherein the radar controller is further configured to: set a difference between a delay of a fixed frequency range of the microwave transmission signal and a delay of the fixed frequency range of the microwave transmission signal of other microwave radars to be greater than a predetermined value.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches “as illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, the first controller 116 may set a transmission delay time (hereinafter, referred to as “delay time”) between the transmission time of the first radio signal and the transmission time of the second radar signal while synchronizing the transmission times of the first and second radar signals. Further, the first controller 116 may set a first blanking time including an interference area of the first and second radar signals based on the delay time. (Para. 51).”
In view of the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to synchronize the radar to have a transmission delay that would be long enough to avoid interference by other radars in the area thereby reducing the risk of interference with said other radars.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 10, 12 and 17 – 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.
The features of claims 5 and 17 are not taught by prior art. Claims 11 – 10 and 18 – 20 depend from claims 5 and 17. The feature concerning difference, as claimed, in claim 12 is not taught. The Examiner does not believe it would be obvious to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights