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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/16/2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024, 02/27/2025, and 04/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 includes the numbering of the vehicle “100”. All other numbers have been deleted; therefore, this number appears to be a minor typographical error. The Examiner will interpret the “100” as deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 15-17, and 21 of copending Application No. 19/579,311 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application discloses
A radar modulation parameter detection system, comprising: an antenna arranged to receive a radar signal from a radar under test, RUT, a power detector arranged to determine a temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, where the temporal power level profile is a power level pattern as a function of time, and processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain a record comprising at least two different radar modulation formats, where each radar modulation format in the record is associated with respective radar modulation parameters, and with respective temporal power level profile data entries, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify a current modulation format in use by the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record, and wherein the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output a radar test system control signal determined based on the current modulation format of the RUT (See at least Claim 1 “A radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600), comprising an antenna (610) arranged to receive a radar signal (602) from a radar under test, RUT, (601), a power detector (620) arranged to determine a temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, and processing circuitry (640), where the processing circuitry (640) is configured to obtain a record comprising at least two different radar modulation formats, where each radar modulation format in the record is associated with respective radar modulation parameters, and with respective temporal power level profile data entries, where the processing circuitry (640) is configured to identify a current modulation format in use by the RUT (601) among the at least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record, where the radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600) is arranged to output a radar test system control signal determined based on the current modulation format of the RUT (601).”)
Regarding claim 2, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the radar modulation parameters comprise any of; radar signal bandwidth, chirp length, chirp period, chirp slope, chirp center frequency, antenna configuration, antenna activation and antenna transmission pattern (See at least Claim 2 “the radar modulation parameters comprise any of; radar signal bandwidth, chirp length, chirp period, chirp slope, chirp center frequency, antenna configuration, antenna activation and antenna transmission pattern”).
Regarding claim 3, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the record further describes a repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT, where the processing circuitry is configured to determine a future modulation format of the RUT, based on the identified current modulation format of the RUT and on the repeating time sequence of modulation formats, where the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output data indicative of the future modulation format of the RUT (See at least Claim 3 “the record further describes a repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT (601), where the processing circuitry (640) is configured to determine a future modulation format of the RUT (601), based on the identified current modulation format of the RUT (601) and on the repeating time sequence of modulation formats, where the radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600) is arranged to output data indicative of the future modulation format of the RUT (601)”).
Regarding claim 4, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the processing circuitry is arranged to detect an onset and/or a cessation of transmission by the RUT, based on the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, where the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output a trigger signal indicative of the onset and/or the cessation of transmission by the RUT (See at least Claim 4 “the processing circuitry (640) is arranged to detect an onset and/or a cessation of transmission by the RUT, based on the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, where the radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600) is arranged to output a trigger signal indicative of the onset and/or the cessation of transmission by the RUT (601)”).
Regarding claim 5, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises a frame time duration measured from an onset of radar signal transmission to a cessation of radar signal transmission (See at least Claim 5 “the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises a frame time duration measured from an onset of radar signal transmission to a cessation of radar signal transmission”).
Regarding claim 6, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5. The reference application additionally discloses
the onset and cessation of radar signal transmission is detected using a power threshold and the frame time duration is determined using a timer or clock (See at least Claim 6 “the onset and cessation of radar signal transmission is detected using a power threshold and the frame time duration is determined using a timer or clock”).
Regarding claim 7, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises at least one power threshold value, and a set of time instants when the received radar signal crosses the threshold (See at least Claim 7 “the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises at least one power threshold value, and a set of time instants when the received radar signal crosses the threshold”).
Regarding claim 8, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
the processing circuitry is configured to identify the current modulation format in use by the RUT using a comparison metric that comprises a time duration of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or a power level of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or an amplitude pattern of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal (See at least Claim 8 “the processing circuitry (640) is configured to identify the current modulation format in use by the RUT (601) using a comparison metric that comprises a time duration of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or a power level of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or an amplitude pattern of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal”).
Regarding claim 9, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
where the comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises rising edge and/or falling edge threshold detection (See at least Claim 9 “where the comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises rising edge and/or falling edge threshold detection.”).
Regarding claim 10, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
comprising a modulation format detection sub-system arranged to identify radar modulation parameters in a radar modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to populate the record by the identified radar modulation parameters (See at least Claim 10 “comprising a modulation format detection sub-system (410) arranged to identify radar modulation parameters in a radar modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to populate the record by the identified radar modulation parameters”).
Regarding claim 11, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. The reference application additionally discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT based on a recurrence analysis of a sequence of detected modulation formats of the RUT. (See at least Claim 11 “where the processing circuitry is configured to determine the repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT (601) based on a recurrence analysis of a sequence of detected modulation formats of the RUT.”).
Regarding claim 12, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
wherein the record comprises at least two different sets of modulation formats, where each set comprises at least one modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to select which set to use based on an external input signal associated with the RUT. (See at least Claim 12 “where the record comprises at least two different sets of modulation formats, where each set comprises at least one modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to select which set to use based on an external input signal associated with the RUT.”).
Regarding claim 13, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. The reference application additionally discloses
wherein the external input signal comprises any of a controller area network, CAN, bus signal, an Ethernet signal, or a FlexRay bus signal. (See at least Claim 13 “the external input signal comprises any of a controller area network, CAN, bus signal, an Ethernet signal, or a FlexRay bus signal.”).
Regarding claim 15, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
arranged to output a lock signal in case of successful identification of the current modulation format of the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats (See at least Claim 15 “arranged to output a lock signal in case of successful identification of the current modulation format of the RUT (601) among the at least two different radar modulation formats.”).
Regarding claim 16, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The reference application additionally discloses
wherein the temporal power level profile is determined at least partly based on a comparison between the output of the power detector and a threshold, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the threshold based on a histogram of output samples from the power detector. (See at least Claim 16 “where the temporal power level profile is determined at least partly based on a comparison between the output of the power detector (620) and a threshold, where the processing circuitry (640) is configured to determine the threshold based on a histogram of output samples from the power detector”).
Regarding claim 17, The reference application, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16. The reference application additionally discloses
parameter detection system according to claim 16, where the processing circuitry is configured to determine a signal-to-noise, SNR, value based on the histogram (See at least Claim 17 “the processing circuitry (640) is configured to determine a signal-to-noise, SNR, value based on the histogram”).
Regarding claim 19, the reference application discloses
A computer-implemented method performed by a radar modulation parameter detection system, the method comprising: receiving, a radar signal by an antenna from a radar under test, RUT; and determining a temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, by a power detector; obtaining, by processing circuitry, a record comprising at least two different radar modulation formats, where each radar modulation format in the record is associated with respective radar modulation parameters, and with respective temporal power level profile data entries; entries, identifying, by the processing circuitry, a current modulation format in use by the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record, and outputting, by the radar modulation parameter detection system, a radar test system control signal determined based on the current modulation format of the RUT (See at least Claim 21 “A computer-implemented method performed by a radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600), the method comprising receiving (S1), a radar signal (602) by an antenna (610) from a radar under test, RUT, (601), determining (S2) a temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, by a power detector (620), obtaining (S3), by processing circuitry (640), a record comprising at least two different radar modulation formats, where each radar modulation format in the record is associated with respective radar modulation parameters, and with respective temporal power level profile data entries, identifying (S4), by the processing circuitry (640), a current modulation format in use by the RUT (601) among the at least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record, and outputting (S5), by the radar modulation parameter detection system (420, 600), a radar test system control signal determined based on the current modulation format of the RUT (601)”)
Claims 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. (19/579,311) in view of Charvat (US 20240427009 A1), hereinafter Charvat. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 14, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. The reference application does not explicitly disclose wherein the external input signal is indicative of a vehicle speed or a yaw rate of a vehicle 100. However, Charvat, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the external input signal is indicative of a vehicle speed or a yaw rate of a vehicle 100 (See at least [0281] “the second radar operational configuration may be selected based on situational awareness data indicating that a vehicle is traveling at high speed” Charvat discloses altering transmission and thereby reception characteristics of radar signals.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by the reference application with the vehicle system disclosed by Charvat. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously fine tune the system for increased accuracy (See at least [0117] “Thus, finer range resolutions are beneficial in that they provide more accuracy”).
Claims 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. (19/579,311) in view of Vook (US 20220397661 A1), hereinafter Vook. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced by the rejection below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 18, the reference application, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The reference application does not explicitly disclose a radar test system comprising a radar modulation parameter detection system. However, Vook, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
A radar test system comprising a radar modulation parameter detection system (See at least [0022] “, it is emphasized that the presently described system 100 for testing vehicular radar”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by the reference application with the radar test system disclosed by Vook. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve safety (See at least [0003] “This enables simulation of a wide variety of driving scenarios for testing the radar without the need for safety drivers or permission from local governments, and without putting the drivers and the public at risk.”).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vook (US 20220397661 A1), hereinafter Vook, in view of Murias (US 20240388937 A1), hereinafter Murias.
Regarding claim 1, Vook, as shown below, discloses a radar modulation parameter detection system comprising the following limitations:
an antenna arranged to receive a radar signal from a radar under test, RUT (See at least Fig. 1, Item 110, [0024] “The system 100 includes an antenna 110 that receives the radar signal over the air (OTA) from the radar under test 105”),
a power detector arranged to determine a temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, where the temporal power level profile is a power level pattern as a function of time (See at least Figs. 1-3, Item 130, [0024] “The RF power detector 130 is configured to monitor and/or sample the received radar signal, and to output a DC voltage proportional to the power of the received radar signal”, [0023] “The radar signal has a burst pattern including repeating bursts of RF energy that are arranged in repeating radar frames” Vook discloses observing power through patterns occurring over frames, thereby a function of time.), and
processing circuitry (See at least Fig. 1, Item 170, [0030] “processing unit 170”),
wherein the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output a radar test system control signal determined based on the current modulation format of the RUT (See at least [0029] “the trigger signals are output by the trigger generator 150 to a display 160, which may be configured to display various types of information acquired in the course of generating the trigger signals.”)
Vook does not explicitly disclose least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record. However, Murias, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
(See at least [0121] “The spectrum management module is operable to generate a query to a static database to classify a signal based on its components. For example, the information stored in static database is operable to be used to determine the spectral density, center frequency, bandwidth, baud rate, modulation type”, [0134] “the history or historical database 232 is operable to include measured signal data 234 for signals that have been previously identified by the spectrum management device 202. The measured signal data 234 is operable to include the raw RF energy measurements, time stamps, location information, one or more signal parameters for any identified signals, such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration, etc.” Murias discloses a historic signal data including signals recorded with various data including modulations and power data.),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify a current modulation format in use by the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats in the record, based on a comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record (See at least [0121] “The spectrum management module is operable to generate a query to a static database to classify a signal based on its components. For example, the information stored in static database is operable to be used to determine the spectral density, center frequency, bandwidth, baud rate, modulation type”, [0134] “the history or historical database 232 is operable to include measured signal data 234 for signals that have been previously identified by the spectrum management device 202. The measured signal data 234 is operable to include the raw RF energy measurements, time stamps, location information, one or more signal parameters for any identified signals, such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration, etc.”), and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the radar modulation parameters comprise any of; radar signal bandwidth, chirp length, chirp period, chirp slope, chirp center frequency, antenna configuration, antenna activation and antenna transmission pattern. However, Murias further discloses
the radar modulation parameters comprise any of; radar signal bandwidth, chirp length, chirp period, chirp slope, chirp center frequency, antenna configuration, antenna activation and antenna transmission pattern (See at least [0121] “the information stored in static database is operable to be used to determine the spectral density, center frequency, bandwidth, baud rate, modulation type”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook further discloses
the processing circuitry is arranged to detect an onset and/or a cessation of transmission by the RUT, based on the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal, where the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output a trigger signal indicative of the onset and/or the cessation of transmission by the RUT (See at least [0049] “Each pulse in the voltage waveform has a rising edge and a falling edge, where detection of either or both of the rising and falling edges may be used to identify the start of the radar frame containing the RF energy burst” Vook discloses an output as an identification of a start of a radar frame/signal).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises a frame time duration measured from an onset of radar signal transmission to a cessation of radar signal transmission. However, Murias further discloses
the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises a frame time duration measured from an onset of radar signal transmission to a cessation of radar signal transmission (See at least [0038] “determining burst data by identifying start and stop points of the one or more RF samples”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Vook does not disclose the onset and cessation of radar signal transmission is detected using a power threshold and the frame time duration is determined using a timer or clock. However, Murias further discloses
the onset and cessation of radar signal transmission is detected using a power threshold and the frame time duration is determined using a timer or clock (See at least [0138] “the processor 214 is operable to analyze the spectral representation data to identify a signal above a power threshold. A power threshold is operable to be an amplitude measure selected to distinguish RF energies associated with actual signals from noise. […] the processor 214 is operable to determine signal parameters such as […] signal duration for the identified signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises at least one power threshold value, and a set of time instants when the received radar signal crosses the threshold. However, Murias further discloses
the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises at least one power threshold value, and a set of time instants when the received radar signal crosses the threshold (See at least [0138] “the processor 214 is operable to analyze the spectral representation data to identify a signal above a power threshold. A power threshold is operable to be an amplitude measure selected to distinguish RF energies associated with actual signals from noise. […] the processor 214 is operable to determine signal parameters such as […] signal duration for the identified signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the processing circuitry is configured to identify the current modulation format in use by the RUT using a comparison metric that comprises a time duration of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or a power level of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or an amplitude pattern of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal. However, Murias further discloses
the processing circuitry is configured to identify the current modulation format in use by the RUT using a comparison metric that comprises a time duration of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or a power level of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and/or an amplitude pattern of the temporal power level profile of the received radar signal (See at least [0138] “the processor 214 is operable to analyze the spectral representation data to identify a signal above a power threshold. A power threshold is operable to be an amplitude measure selected to distinguish RF energies associated with actual signals from noise. […] the processor 214 is operable to determine signal parameters such as […] signal duration for the identified signals.”, [0139] “In block 318 the processor 214 is operable to compare the signal parameters of each identified signal to signal parameters in a signal characteristic listing.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook further discloses
the comparison between the determined temporal power level profile of the received radar signal and the temporal power level profile data entries in the record comprises rising edge and/or falling edge threshold detection (See at least [0049] “Each pulse in the voltage waveform has a rising edge and a falling edge, where detection of either or both of the rising and falling edges may be used to identify the start of the radar frame containing the RF energy burst” Vook discloses an output as an identification of a start of a radar frame/signal).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose a modulation format detection sub-system arranged to identify radar modulation parameters in a radar modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to populate the record by the identified radar modulation parameters. However, Murias further discloses
a modulation format detection sub-system arranged to identify radar modulation parameters in a radar modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to populate the record by the identified radar modulation parameters (See at least [0134] “the history or historical database 232 is operable to include measured signal data 234 for signals that have been previously identified by the spectrum management device 202. The measured signal data 234 is operable to include the raw RF energy measurements, time stamps, location information, one or more signal parameters for any identified signals, such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration, etc.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the record comprises at least two different sets of modulation formats, where each set comprises at least one modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to select which set to use based on an external input signal associated with the RUT. However, Murias further discloses
the record comprises at least two different sets of modulation formats, where each set comprises at least one modulation format, where the processing circuitry is arranged to select which set to use based on an external input signal associated with the RUT (See at least [0135] “The parameter match module 223 is operable to retrieve data from the history or historical database 232 and/or the characteristic listing 236 and compare the retrieved data to any received parameters to identify matches.” Murias discloses using a variety of databases and selecting based on the RUT signal parameters. See also [0112], [0121]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose arranged to output a lock signal in case of successful identification of the current modulation format of the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats. However, Murias further discloses
arranged to output a lock signal in case of successful identification of the current modulation format of the RUT among the at least two different radar modulation formats (See at least [0135] “The parameter match module 223 is operable to retrieve data from the history or historical database 232 and/or the characteristic listing 236 and compare the retrieved data to any received parameters to identify matches. […] display 242 is operable to be controlled by the signal processor 214 to output spectral representations of received signals, signal characteristic information, and/or indications of signal identifications on the display 242”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook does not disclose the temporal power level profile is determined at least partly based on a comparison between the output of the power detector and a threshold, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the threshold based on a histogram of output samples from the power detector. However, Murias further discloses
the temporal power level profile is determined at least partly based on a comparison between the output of the power detector and a threshold, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the threshold based on a histogram of output samples from the power detector (See at least Figs 5A-5C, [0141] “in block 502 the processor 214 is operable to receive a noise floor average setting. In an embodiment, the noise floor average setting is operable to be an average noise level for the environment in which the spectrum management device 202 is operating. […] If the average for the sample block is lower than the noise floor average (i.e., determination block 510=“No”), no signals of interest are operable to be present in the current sample block.” See also [0157]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification and matching (See at least [0171] “using signal profiling and/or comparison with known database(s) and previously recorded profile(s), identifying the expected device or emitter, stating the level of confidence for the identification, and/or storing profiling and sensing information for improved algorithms and matching.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Vook and Murias, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Vook further discloses
a radar test system comprising a radar modulation parameter detection system (See at least [0022] “, it is emphasized that the presently described system 100 for testing vehicular radar”).
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claim 3 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vook, in view of Murias, in further view of Brand (US 20240397319 A1), hereinafter Brand.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Vook and Murias, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Vook and Murias does not explicitly disclose the record further describes a repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT, where the processing circuitry is configured to determine a future modulation format of the RUT, based on the identified current modulation format of the RUT and on the repeating time sequence of modulation formats, where the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output data indicative of the future modulation format of the RUT. However, Brand, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the record further describes a repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT, where the processing circuitry is configured to determine a future modulation format of the RUT, based on the identified current modulation format of the RUT and on the repeating time sequence of modulation formats (See at least [0044] “the frequency and/or modulation scheme sequence may be indicated to the receiving controller(s) 118 in a number of possible ways. In some cases, the controller 118 may send a sequence table indicating the repeating sequence of frequencies used and/or modulation schemes used”), where the radar modulation parameter detection system is arranged to output data indicative of the future modulation format of the RUT (See at least [0050] “At any given time, the modulation scheme to be used will be determined, using the modulation sequence, and the data packet will be sent using that modulation scheme.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias with the repeating modulation formatting system disclosed by Brand. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve operational efficiency (See at least [0097] “By employing the systems and methods, as disclosed herein, railroad operational efficiency, reliability, and consistency can be improved by enabling more automated operations”).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Vook and Murias, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. The combination of Vook and Murias does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is configured to determine the repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT based on a recurrence analysis of a sequence of detected modulation formats of the RUT. However, Brand, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the repeating time sequence of modulation formats of the RUT based on a recurrence analysis of a sequence of detected modulation formats of the RUT (See at least [0044] “the frequency and/or modulation scheme sequence may be indicated to the receiving controller(s) 118 in a number of possible ways. In some cases, the controller 118 may send a sequence table indicating the repeating sequence of frequencies used and/or modulation schemes used”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias with the repeating modulation formatting system disclosed by Brand. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve operational efficiency (See at least [0097] “By employing the systems and methods, as disclosed herein, railroad operational efficiency, reliability, and consistency can be improved by enabling more automated operations”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vook, in view of Murias, in further view of Flick (US 20050275509 A1), hereinafter Flick.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Vook and Murias, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. The combination of Vook and Murias does not explicitly disclose the external input signal comprises any of a controller area network, CAN, bus signal, an Ethernet signal, or a FlexRay bus signal. However, Flick, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the external input signal comprises any of a controller area network, CAN, bus signal, an Ethernet signal, or a FlexRay bus signal (See at least [0042] “a bus determining selector 77' is used for determining the desired set of signals based upon signals on the data communications bus 62”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias with the input system disclosed by Flick. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance compatibility and thereby signal efficiency (See at least [0011] “To provide multi-vehicle compatibility, the vehicle security controller may further include a desired signal enabler for enabling operation using a desired set of data bus codes for the vehicle from among a plurality of sets of data bus codes for different vehicles”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vook, in view of Murias, in further view of Charvat (US 20240427009 A1), hereinafter Charvat.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Vook and Murias, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. The combination of Vook and Murias does not explicitly disclose the external input signal is indicative of a vehicle speed or a yaw rate of a vehicle 100. However, Charvat, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the external input signal is indicative of a vehicle speed or a yaw rate of a vehicle 100 (See at least [0281] “the second radar operational configuration may be selected based on situational awareness data indicating that a vehicle is traveling at high speed” Charvat discloses altering transmission and thereby reception characteristics of radar signals.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias with the vehicle system disclosed by Charvat. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously fine tune the system for increased accuracy (See at least [0117] “Thus, finer range resolutions are beneficial in that they provide more accuracy”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vook, in view of Murias, in further view of Arool Emmanuel (US 11841455 B1), hereinafter Arool.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Vook and Murias, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 16. The combination of Vook and Murias does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is configured to determine a signal-to-noise, SNR, value based on the histogram. However, Arool, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the processing circuitry is configured to determine a signal-to-noise, SNR, value based on the histogram (See at least Col. 16 Lines 39-40 “the dynamic-calibration component 134 may calculate SNR and/or SFDF values for the signals 202” Arool discloses calculation of SNR values based on the distribution (histogram) of a signal).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar modulation parameter detection system disclosed by Vook with the modulation matching system disclosed by Murias with the SNR disclosed by Arool. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least Col. 2 Lines 53-55 “systems that have poor RF isolation may maintain accurate detection and resolution of objects at different range conditions in the environment of the electronic devices.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kleinbeck (US 20190208112 A1) - Systems, methods, and apparatus for detecting UAVs in an RF environment are disclosed. An apparatus is constructed and configured for network communication with at least one camera. The at least one camera captures images of the RF environment and transmits video data to the apparatus. The apparatus receives RF data and generates FFT data based on the RF data, identifies at least one signal based on a first derivative and a second derivative of the FFT data, measures a direction from which the at least one signal is transmitted, analyzes the video data. The apparatus then identifies at least one UAV to which the at least one signal is related based on the analyzed video data, the RF data, and the direction from which the at least one signal is transmitted, and controls the at least one camera based on the analyzed video data.
Carbajal (US 20140321519 A1) - Systems, methods, and apparatus are provided for device sensing in white space, by identifying sources of signal emission by automatically detecting signals, analyzing signals, comparing signal data to historical and reference data, and creating corresponding unique signal profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights