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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 4, “configured to perform dephasing process” is ungrammatical. Examiner recommends inserting “a” before dephasing.
In claim 5, lines 4-5, “a start signal” should be amended to “the start signal” as the start signal has been previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In claims 1 and 9, in “wherein the receiving unit and the emitting unit adopt a homologous clock design” a “homologous clock design” is understood in view of the dictionary definition for “homologous” as “having the same relative position, value, or structure” and further in view of specification paras. [0020]-[0022] and Figs. 1-3 as comprising a clock design where the emitting and receiving units share a single clock generator.
The following elements in claims 1-12 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they indicate sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art:
receiving unit of a radar system;
emitting unit;
multiplexing switch unit;
switch switching unit;
external clock generating circuit;
external clock generator;
power division circuit; and
clock generator.
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:
an input selection module, configured to select an input channel, wherein the input channel comprises an echo signal input channel and a start signal input channel, the echo signal input channel is configured to receive an echo signal, and the start signal input channel is configured to input an start signal of an emission signal, wherein the start signal is sent by an emitting unit (paras. [0007], [0058]-[0060], [0098]);
a time digital conversion module, connected to the input selection module, and configured to time the echo signal or the start signal to obtain a timing result (paras. [0053], [0098]);
an extraction module, connected to the input selection module and the time digital conversion module respectively, and configured to perform phase extraction on the start signal to obtain a phase result (paras. [0054], [0066], [0098]);
a phase decomposition module, connected to the extraction module, and configured to calculate a measurement result based on the timing result and the phase result (paras. [0055], [0066], [0098]),
an initial reset module, connected to the time digital conversion module, and configured to output a zeroing control instruction to the time digital conversion module when receiving a start signal, so as to reset the zero time of the time digital conversion module (para. [0098] describes physical structure; sufficient algorithm is recited within the claim);
a cache module, connected to the extraction module and configured to cache the phase results extracted by the extraction module (para. [0098] describes physical structure; sufficient algorithm is recited within the claim);
a filtering module, connected to the cache module and configured to filter the phase results cached in the cache module (para. [0098] describes physical structure; sufficient algorithm is recited within the claim);
a multi-channel switch unit, connected to the plurality of receiving channels respectively, and configured to select a connection path of the corresponding receiving channel according to a channel selection signal (para. [0098] describes physical structure; sufficient algorithm is recited within the claim); and
a channel selection unit, connected to the multi-channel switch unit, and configured to output a channel selection signal (para. [0098] describes physical structure; sufficient algorithm is recited within the claim),
in claims 1-12.
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.
Regarding claim 1 line 1, the scope of “A radar data processing device, applied to a receiving unit of a radar system” cannot be clearly understood because it is unclear what it means for the device to be “applied to” the receiving unit.
Regarding claim 1 line 14 and claim 9 line 2, it is unclear what it means for the receiving and emitting units to “adopt a homologous clock design”, as it is unclear how a clock design can be “adopted”.
Regarding claim 4 line 2, the scope of “clock digital signal module” in “a signal being processed by clock digital signal module” cannot be clearly determined. The only reference to this element in the specification is found in para. [0009] “In an embodiment, the valid signal flag is used to indicate that a signal being processed by a clock digital signal module is the echo signal”, which indicates that the clock digital signal module performs processing, but does not provide any indication of the type of structure it comprises or the type of processing it performs. One of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of this element.
Regarding claim 8 lines 2-4, it is unclear how “each receiving channel” can be provided with “the time digital conversion module, the extraction module, and the phase decomposition module”, as there are a plurality of channels recited, but only one of each of the modules.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, the closest prior art (Shinozuka US 20180259627 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught are lined through], in a Lidar application:
an input selection module (109, Fig. 1) configured to select an input channel (one of outputs from 106 and 105 is selected), wherein the input channel comprises an echo signal input channel (output from Ranging light detecting element 105) and a start signal input channel (output from Simulation signal generating circuit 106), the echo signal input channel is configured to receive an echo signal (output from Ranging light detecting element 105), and the start signal input channel is configured to input an start signal of an emission signal (output from Simulation signal generating circuit 106),
a time digital conversion module, connected to the input selection module, and configured to time the echo signal or the start signal to obtain a timing result (110, Fig. 1 in view of 305, Fig. 4; para. [0092] “The TDC 305 performs time-to-digital conversion with respect to the second time signal, thereby generating information on a desired time of a second time or an incidence time”);
Park (US 9581688 B2) teaches an input selection module (SWITCH UNIT 14, Fig. 6) configured to select an input channel (one of inputs from DLL UNIT 12), wherein the input channel comprises (4:5-13),
Wei (US 20230358856 A1) teaches receiving and emitting units adopting a homologous clock design (para. [0161] “A whole IF signal processing board uses homologous clocks...to drive ... a local oscillator of the transmitter, a local oscillator of the receiver”).
However to prior art does not teach or make obvious the combination:
an input selection module, configured to select an input channel, wherein the input channel comprises an echo signal input channel and a start signal input channel, the echo signal input channel is configured to receive an echo signal, and the start signal input channel is configured to input an start signal of an emission signal, wherein the start signal is sent by an emitting unit;
a time digital conversion module, connected to the input selection module, and configured to time the echo signal or the start signal to obtain a timing result;
an extraction module, connected to the input selection module and the time digital conversion module respectively, and configured to perform phase extraction on the start signal to obtain a phase result; and
a phase decomposition module, connected to the extraction module, and configured to calculate a measurement result based on the timing result and the phase result,
wherein the receiving unit and the emitting unit adopt a homologous clock design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights