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 9-24-2024, 2-4-2026 and 4-27-2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goswami, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0255279, published August 19, 2021.
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, Goswami discloses an apparatus comprising:
a wireless transceiver for a mobile device (Goswami, Fig. 1 and ¶11), the wireless transceiver configured to be connected to one or more antennas and configured to: determine one or more radar signal parameter settings based on at least one environmental factor (Goswami, ¶31);
transmit a radar transmit signal using the one or more radar signal parameter settings; receive a radar receive signal that results from a reflection of the radar transmit signal; and sense an object using the radar receive signal (Goswami, ¶13).
As per claim 2, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: ascertain the at least one environmental factor, the at least one environmental factor related to at least one of the mobile device or a user of the mobile device (Goswami, ¶28 mode is related to the device).
As per claim 3, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: ascertain the at least one environmental factor based on at least one ambient condition (Goswami, ¶38).
As per claim 4, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: ascertain the at least one environmental factor based on at least one current activity (Goswami, ¶28 using motion).
As per claim 5, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: ascertain the at least one environmental factor based on at least one user input (Goswami, ¶32 where the gesture is an input).
As per claim 9, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one environmental factor comprises multiple environmental factors (Goswami, ¶38 where the surrounding objects in the room are multiple);
the one or more radar signal parameter settings comprise multiple radar signal parameter settings (Goswami, ¶45);
the wireless transceiver comprises a modem; and the modem is configured to apply the multiple environmental factors to a multi-dimensional matrix to determine the multiple radar signal parameter settings (Goswami, ¶45 where the SPI is the modem).
As per claim 15, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: determine the one or more radar signal parameter settings by determining at least one of a frequency range, a frequency bandwidth, or a transmit power based on the at least one environmental factor (Goswami, ¶15 where transmit power is based on mode).
As per claim 16, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to at least one of: determine the one or more radar signal parameter settings by determining a pulse repetition interval based on the at least one environmental factor; determine the one or more radar signal parameter settings by determining at least one of a dwell time or a number of chirps per dwell time based on the at least one environmental factor; or determine the one or more radar signal parameter settings by determining, based on the at least one environmental factor, a frame period indicative of a period at which a dwell time is repeated (Goswami, ¶45 configuring the number of and timing of chirps).
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami in view of Alsindi, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0090211, published March 23, 2023.
As per claim 6, Goswami discloses the apparatus of claim 5 including the suggestion of a mobile device but fails to disclose the particulars of the device.
Alsindi teaches a mobile device with a display screen and processor (Fig. 2, 110 and 120) and an interface with applications (¶79 and 91).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the mobile device with a screen and apps in order to gain the benefit of providing the user a familiar interface.
As per claim 7, Goswami as modified by Alsindi discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the selected application of the multiple applications corresponds to gesture detection (Goswami, ¶29).
As per claim 8, Goswami as modified by Alsindi further discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein each application of the multiple applications respectively corresponds to an object range of multiple object ranges (Goswami, ¶23-24 where multiple objects are processed).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami in view of Hay, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0363741, published November 28, 2019.
As per claim 10, Goswami discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the transceiver components.
Hay teaches a signal path and shared path with amplifiers and frequency ranges (Fig. 3 showing the amplifiers, multiple paths and multiple frequency band options).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have amplifiers and frequency bands in order to gain the benefit of using existing and well-known radar design principles.
As per claim 11, Goswami as modified by Hay discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the first frequency range is higher than the second frequency range; and the shared signaling path is configured to transceive radar signals and wireless communication signals (Hay, Fig. 3, 314 showing high and low bands).
As per claim 12, Goswami as modified by Hay further discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the wireless transceiver comprises a frequency-varying local oscillator configured to produce a frequency-varying local-oscillator signal; the radar signaling path is configured to transmit first radar transmit signals in the first frequency range based on the frequency-varying local-oscillator signal; and the shared signaling path is configured to transmit second radar transmit signals in the second frequency range based on the frequency-varying local-oscillator signal (Goswami, Fig. 1, 108 and Hay, Fig. 3).
As per claim 13, Goswami as modified by Hay further discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the multiple power amplifiers and the multiple low-noise amplifiers of the shared signaling path comprise multiple pairs of amplifiers, each pair of amplifiers of the multiple pairs of amplifiers comprising a power amplifier of the multiple power amplifiers and a low-noise amplifier of the multiple low-noise amplifiers, each respective pair of amplifiers of the multiple pairs of amplifiers configured to be coupled to a respective antenna element of the antenna array; the shared signaling path is configured to transmit radar transmit signals using a power amplifier of a first pair of amplifiers of the multiple pairs of amplifiers; and the shared signaling path is configured to receive radar receive signals using a low-noise amplifier of a second pair of amplifiers of the multiple pairs of amplifiers (Hay, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple amplifiers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine the necessary components.
As per claim 14, Goswami as modified by Hay further discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the radar signaling path is coupled to the shared signaling path at a node that is coupled between a phase shifter of the shared signaling path and a power amplifier of the multiple power amplifiers of the shared signaling path (Goswami, Fig. 1 and Hay, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide coupling in a particular location as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami.
As per claim 17, Goswami discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to: increase a transmit power for the radar transmit signal as a targeted range for object sensing increases; and decrease the transmit power for the radar transmit signal as the targeted range for object sensing decreases (Goswami, ¶26 and 27).
While Goswami fails to disclose adjusting based on increasing or decreasing range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the power limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 18, Goswami further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to decrease a radar bandwidth as a targeted range for object sensing increases (Goswami, ¶14 where bandwidth is tied to resolution).
While Goswami fails to disclose adjusting based on sensing range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the power limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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
Prosecution Insights