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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner.
Regarding claim 1,
Wagner teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
a Functional Safety (FuSa) detector configured to detect FuSa events of an imaging radar processing path comprising a plurality of radar processing stages to generate radar information based on transmission of radar transmit (Tx) signals and processing of radar receive (Rx) signals based on the radar Tx signals, ([0042] – “In an embodiment of the radar signal processor the baseband signal generator generates the baseband signal by mixing information based on a sent radar signal with the information from the received radar signal. The received radar signal is the reflected radar signal of the sent radar signal.”) the FuSa detector comprising:
an input to receive a digital output of a radar processing stage of the imaging radar processing path; ([0092-95] – “The monitoring or evaluation of the signal may be done inside a monitoring unit, which may be located after the Lead-Lag filter, or even after an optional ADC. The monitoring unit may work either analog or digital.”)
a processor configured to monitor the digital output, and to detect a FuSa event based on current data of the digital output and reference information corresponding to the radar processing stage; ([0092, 94] – “The method 50 for monitoring a functional safety of a radar system comprises receiving a baseband signal 51 having information on a distance of an object, filtering 52 the baseband signal with a Lead-Lag filter to generate a filtered signal and concluding 53 on safe operation conditions of the radar system, if a signal property of the filtered signal fulfills a predetermined criterion.”) and
an output to provide a FuSa alert to indicate detection of the FuSa event. ([0097-98] – “A reliability signal may be provided additional to the information or data from the radar measurement, which indicates, if the radar system is working properly. This signal may be digital in the simplest design, indicating with values of 0 and 1 its functioning.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the reference information corresponding to the radar processing stage represents expected data in the digital output of the radar processing stage when no FuSa event is to be detected. ([0094] – “Therefore a conclusion if the radar system is working properly (in safe conditions) is made by monitoring signal parameters/properties of the filtered signal. These signals are compared with e.g. predetermined values or criterion to detect an error or misbehavior of the system.” Predetermined values or criterion of the filtered signal correspond to expected data.)
Regarding claim 3,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the reference information corresponding to the radar processing stage is based on previous data in the digital output. ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
Regarding claim 4,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the previous data of the digital output comprises a previous value of a predefined parameter in the digital output, wherein the processor is configured to identify a current value of the predefined parameter in the digital output, and to detect the FuSa event based on a comparison between the current value of the predefined parameter and the previous value of the predefined parameter. ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component value of current portion of the signal and on DC component value of previous portion of the signal.)
Regarding claim 5,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to detect the FuSa event based on a difference between the current value of the predefined parameter and the previous value of the predefined parameter. ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based on a difference between DC component value of current portion of the signal and on DC component value of previous portion of the signal)
Regarding claim 6,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to generate the FuSa alert based on a determination that the difference between the current value of the predefined parameter and the previous value of the predefined parameter is greater than a difference threshold. ([0108] – “Assuming that slow shifts in the monitored value are OK, the predetermined criterion may be fulfilled, if the deviation (of the DC-component) is less than 10%, 5% or 1% within a unit of time of 1 second, 0.1 seconds, 10 milliseconds or 1 millisecond.”)
Regarding claim 11,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the digital output of the radar processing stage comprises an output of an Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) based on analog radar signals processed by an analog radar processing stage of the imaging radar processing path. ([0092-95] – “The monitoring or evaluation of the signal may be done inside a monitoring unit, which may be located after the Lead-Lag filter, or even after an optional ADC. The monitoring unit may work either analog or digital.”)
Regarding claim(s) 27-28,
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are radar system claims corresponding to apparatus claim(s) 1-2, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 27-28 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-2.
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) 7-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 11313967 B2 to Schmidt.
Regarding claim 7,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 11313967 B2 to Schmidt teaches:
wherein the reference information comprises a reference digital signature. ([col. 24, lines 49-60] – “The digital input circuit (DSI), in predetermined modes of the measuring system, therefore not only has the function of signal processing, but may also have the function of a test apparatus for the examination that the signal processing string of the measuring system (SS) delivers a response to stimuli of the digital signal generating unit (DSO) corresponding to a predefined value or a predefined signal sequence with the known system configuration or does not deviate therefrom by more than a predefined amount.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Schmidt’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Schmidt teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a predefined signal sequence input for processing as reference information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8,
Wagner in view of Schmidt teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7, (see rejection of claim above)
Schmidt further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to identify a current digital signature in the current data, and to detect the FuSa event based on a comparison between the current digital signature and the reference digital signature. ([col. 24, lines 49-60] – “The digital input circuit (DSI), in predetermined modes of the measuring system, therefore not only has the function of signal processing, but may also have the function of a test apparatus for the examination that the signal processing string of the measuring system (SS) delivers a response to stimuli of the digital signal generating unit (DSO) corresponding to a predefined value or a predefined signal sequence with the known system configuration or does not deviate therefrom by more than a predefined amount.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Schmidt’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Schmidt teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a predefined signal sequence input for processing as reference information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9,
Wagner in view of Schmidt teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7, (see rejection of claim above)
Schmidt further teaches:
wherein the reference digital signature is based on a predefined digital signature to be applied to a digital input of the radar processing stage. ([col. 24, lines 49-60] – “The digital input circuit (DSI), in predetermined modes of the measuring system, therefore not only has the function of signal processing, but may also have the function of a test apparatus for the examination that the signal processing string of the measuring system (SS) delivers a response to stimuli of the digital signal generating unit (DSO) corresponding to a predefined value or a predefined signal sequence with the known system configuration or does not deviate therefrom by more than a predefined amount.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Schmidt’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Schmidt teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a predefined signal sequence input for processing as reference information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10,
Wagner in view of Schmidt teaches:
The apparatus of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Schmidt further teaches:
comprising a pattern generator configured to generate the predefined digital signature and to apply the predefined digital signature to the digital input of the radar processing stage. ([col. 24, lines 49-60] – “The digital input circuit (DSI), in predetermined modes of the measuring system, therefore not only has the function of signal processing, but may also have the function of a test apparatus for the examination that the signal processing string of the measuring system (SS) delivers a response to stimuli of the digital signal generating unit (DSO) corresponding to a predefined value or a predefined signal sequence with the known system configuration or does not deviate therefrom by more than a predefined amount.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Schmidt’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Schmidt teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a predefined signal sequence input for processing as reference information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 11313967 B2 to Schmidt teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to monitor a digital output of a matched filter processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, and to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the digital output of the matched filter processing stage. ([col. 24, lines 24-60] – “it is conceivable to adapt digital filters, in particular matched filters, and digital signal processing methods to the predefined stimuli”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Schmidt’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Schmidt teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a matched filter as part of the radar processing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 20210263134 A1 to Mende.
Regarding claim 12,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 20210263134 A1 to Mende teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to monitor a digital output of a Doppler processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, and to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the digital output of the Doppler processing stage. ([0026] – “disturbance criterion is then met when the maximum, the minimum, the average signal-to-noise ratio and/or the median of the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than a predetermined limit. This predetermined limit is, for example, 100 dB, preferably 50 dB, especially preferably 20 dB. The respective signal-to-noise ratio is consequently detected via the selected peaks of the detection matrix, for example the range-Doppler matrix. Subsequently, the maximum, the minimum, the average and/or the median of these ratios are detected and compared with the predetermined limit. If the respective signal-to-noise ratio is smaller than the predetermined limit, it is assumed that a reliable object recognition of the individual road users it not or not reliably guaranteed, meaning that a disturbance criterion is met.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Mende’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Mende teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a Doppler processed data as radar output;(3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 20210263134 A1 to Mende and further in view of US 20190101619 A1 to Ikeda.
Regarding claim 13,
Wagner in view of Mende teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the reference information comprises previous data ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Ikeda teaches:
wherein the current data in the digital output of the Doppler processing stage comprises a current noise floor level of a Range-Doppler (RD) map, wherein the reference information comprises a noise floor level of the RD map. (Fig. 7; [0114-118] – “ when the peak P1 appears only at a point which is the velocity BIN corresponding to the known relative velocity and the distance velocity BIN corresponding to the known position, and the level of the floor noise N is equal to or less than the threshold, the radar device 1 ends the adjustment of the modulation waveform.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Ikeda’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Ikeda teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of using a Doppler processed data as radar output and noise floor data as current data and reference information;(3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 20170350970 A1 to Saito.
Regarding claim 15,
Wagner in view of Schmidt teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the reference information comprises previous data ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 20170350970 A1 to Saito teaches:
wherein the current data in the digital output of the matched filter processing stage comprises a current leakage level of a first-in-order range-bin, wherein the reference information comprises a previous leakage level of the first-in-order range-bin. (Figs. 2-4; [0053-66] – “The threshold calculator 233 calculates the threshold on the basis of the transmission and reception leak signal level LK1.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Saito’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Saito teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of leakage thresholding; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 20200072936 A1 to Clymer.
Regarding claim 16,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 20200072936 A1 to Clymer teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to monitor a digital output of an Angle of Arrival (AoA) processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, and to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the digital output of the AoA processing stage. ([0056] – “With process 100, if the main peak 32 meets or exceeds the minimum threshold, the highest side lobe 36 is identified (120b) and compared (122) to main peak 32 to determine the difference in correlation (124). The difference is then compared (126) to the side lobe proximity threshold. Only then is a determination made to report (128b) the source direction of the signal, i.e. the AOA of the signal, to the pilot, and only when the difference meets or exceeds the side lobe proximity threshold. If it does not, it is rejected (128a). Thus, the pilot is still not notified unless the solution meets or exceeds the minimum and the side lobe proximity thresholds”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Clymer’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Clymer teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of sidelobe thresholding as an indication of reliability of detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17,
Wagner in view of Clymer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the reference information comprises previous data ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
wherein the current data in the digital output of the AoA processing stage comprises a current side lobe level (SLL) value of an AoA map of a Range-Doppler (RD) bin, wherein the reference information comprises a previous SLL value of the AoA map of the RD bin. ([0056] – “With process 100, if the main peak 32 meets or exceeds the minimum threshold, the highest side lobe 36 is identified (120b) and compared (122) to main peak 32 to determine the difference in correlation (124). The difference is then compared (126) to the side lobe proximity threshold. Only then is a determination made to report (128b) the source direction of the signal, i.e. the AOA of the signal, to the pilot, and only when the difference meets or exceeds the side lobe proximity threshold. If it does not, it is rejected (128a). Thus, the pilot is still not notified unless the solution meets or exceeds the minimum and the side lobe proximity thresholds”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Clymer’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Clymer teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of sidelobe thresholding as an indication of reliability of detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047908 A1 to Wagner in view of US 20230341515 A1 to Wilson.
Regarding claim 18,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Wilson teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to monitor a digital output of a digital Tx frontend processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, and to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the digital output of the digital Tx frontend processing stage. (Figs. 2, 4; [0040, 58-61] – “For example, the monitoring processor 220 may be configured to receive a signal quality input from the digital waveform generator 204 (e.g., via signal quality path 222a and an internal digital transmit monitor 224)… step 424 of determining a faulty set of individually addressable components 123”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19,
Wagner in view of Wilson teaches:
The apparatus of claim 18, (see rejection of claim above)
Wilson further teaches:
wherein the current data in the digital output of the digital Tx frontend processing stage comprises a current Tx digital signature of a digital radar Tx signal, wherein the reference information comprises a reference Tx digital signature. (Figs. 2, 4; [0059-61] – “the control profile of a single individually addressable component, containing data from a signal quality input, may be compared to a predicted result signal… the predicted signal may be configured as a previously characterized signal, or test signal, that has been stored for comparison as a reference in flight. For example, the predicted signal may include test patterns, with responses to test patterns previously determined”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Wilson teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to monitor a digital output of a digital Rx frontend processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, and to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the digital output of the digital Rx frontend processing stage. (Figs. 2, 4; [0039-40, 58-61] – “The digital circuitry further includes a digital signal processor 216 communicatively coupled to the ADC 212 and configured to measure, filter, compress, and/or modify the incoming digital signal from the ADC… the monitoring processor may be configured to receive input from the digital signal processor 216 (e.g., via the signal quality path 222b and an internal digital receive monitor 228)… step 424 of determining a faulty set of individually addressable components 123”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 20, (see rejection of claim above)
Wilson further teaches:
wherein the current data in the digital output of the digital Rx frontend processing stage comprises a current Rx digital signature of a digital radar Rx signal, wherein the reference information comprises a reference Rx digital signature. (Figs. 2, 4; [0059-61] – “the control profile of a single individually addressable component, containing data from a signal quality input, may be compared to a predicted result signal… the predicted signal may be configured as a previously characterized signal, or test signal, that has been stored for comparison as a reference in flight. For example, the predicted signal may include test patterns, with responses to test patterns previously determined”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 22,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Wilson teaches:
wherein the digital output of the radar processing stage comprises a Tx frontend digital output based on an output of an analog Tx frontend processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, wherein the processor is configured to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the Tx frontend digital output. (Figs. 2, 4; [0041, 58-61] – “For example, the monitoring processor 220 may be configured to receive input from an external hardware transmit monitor 240 (e.g., via signal quality path 222c) that is communicatively linked to the transmit path 120… In another example, the monitoring processor may be configured to receive input from an external hardware receive monitor 242 (e.g., via signal quality path 222d) that is communicatively linked to the analog return signal 238.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 23,
Wagner in view of Wilson teaches:
The apparatus of claim 22, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the reference information corresponding to the radar processing stage is based on previous data in the digital output. ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
Wilson further teaches:
wherein the current data in the Tx frontend digital output comprises a current Tx power level of a current analog radar Tx signal, wherein the reference information comprises a Tx power level of a analog radar Tx signal. (Figs. 2, 4; [0041, 58-61] – “For example, the monitoring processor 220 may be configured to receive input from an external hardware transmit monitor 240 (e.g., via signal quality path 222c) that is communicatively linked to the transmit path 120… In another example, the monitoring processor may be configured to receive input from an external hardware receive monitor 242 (e.g., via signal quality path 222d) that is communicatively linked to the analog return signal 238.”) ([0051] – “For example, for a faulty individually addressable component 123 with a failing, but not failed emitted signal, the controller 104 may send an instruction via the controller emitter path 244 instructing the analog circuitry increase the power to the emitter antenna 108.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
A modification of the combination of Wagner in view of Wilson to use power level as a parameter of signal quality would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need of a parameter to characterize signal quality; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, e.g., power, noise, RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, RSSI, MER, BER, PAPR; (3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Wilson explicitly discloses power of emitting antenna as a potential fault at [0051]; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 24,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 22, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the Tx frontend digital output comprises an output of a Tx Analog to Digital Converter (ADC), the output of the Tx ADC is based on the current analog Tx radar signal. (Fig. 2 – signal passed along elements 208, 232, 240, 222c, 224 is inherently converted from analog to digital)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25,
Wagner teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner does not appear to explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Wilson teaches:
wherein the digital output of the radar processing stage comprises an Rx frontend digital output based on an output of an analog Rx frontend processing stage of the imaging radar processing path, wherein the processor is configured to detect the FuSa event based on current data in the Rx frontend digital output. (Figs. 2, 4; [0039-40, 58-61] – “The digital circuitry further includes a digital signal processor 216 communicatively coupled to the ADC 212 and configured to measure, filter, compress, and/or modify the incoming digital signal from the ADC… the monitoring processor may be configured to receive input from the digital signal processor 216 (e.g., via the signal quality path 222b and an internal digital receive monitor 228)… step 424 of determining a faulty set of individually addressable components 123”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 26,
Wagner in view of Wilson teaches:
The apparatus of claim 25, (see rejection of claim above)
Wagner further teaches:
wherein the reference information corresponding to the radar processing stage is based on previous data in the digital output. ([0104-106] – “In an embodiment of the method, the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, if a change of the DC component of the filtered signal per unit of time does not exceed a threshold value.” Predetermined criterion is based on change of DC component of the filtered signal across time, i.e., based partly on DC component measurement of previous portion of the signal)
Wilson further teaches:
wherein the Rx frontend digital output comprises a current Rx power level of a current analog radar Rx signal, wherein the reference information comprises a previous Rx power level of a analog radar Rx signal. (Figs. 2, 4; [0041, 58-61] – “For example, the monitoring processor 220 may be configured to receive input from an external hardware transmit monitor 240 (e.g., via signal quality path 222c) that is communicatively linked to the transmit path 120… In another example, the monitoring processor may be configured to receive input from an external hardware receive monitor 242 (e.g., via signal quality path 222d) that is communicatively linked to the analog return signal 238.”) ([0051] – “For example, for a faulty individually addressable component 123 with a failing, but not failed emitted signal, the controller 104 may send an instruction via the controller emitter path 244 instructing the analog circuitry increase the power to the emitter antenna 108.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wilson’s known technique to Wagner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wagner teaches a base method of functional safety testing comprising comparison and thresholding of digitally processed radar output and reference information; (2) Wilson teaches a similar comparison and thresholding of output and reference information, and further teaches a specific technique of monitoring individually addressable components of, e.g., transmit or receive paths, for fault; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust functional safety tests and reference information; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
A modification of the combination of Wagner in view of Wilson to use power level as a parameter of signal quality would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need of a parameter to characterize signal quality; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, e.g., power, noise, RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, RSSI, MER, BER, PAPR; (3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Wilson explicitly discloses power of emitting antenna as a potential fault at [0051]; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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 on (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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights