DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “performing cross packet cancellation” in lines 1-2. It appears that “the” is missing before “cross”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7-8, 11, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 11 recite the limitation " a magnitude offset of the received packet" in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what magnitude is of because packet include many features or parameters. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a amplitude offset of received signal in the received packet". Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitation “empty packets” in claim 7 line 3 and claim 15 lines 2-3, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “empty packets” represents no target signal in packets or transmitter stops transmission. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “no target signal in packets”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the steps of” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “steps” is not defined or mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (US 11,959,998, hereafter Peng).
Regarding claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that A motion detection method { title (detection of living object); col.3 lines 23-25 (computer-readable media having instructions for performing methods by the above-summarized FMCW radar systems.); col.4 lines 33-34 (FMCW radar system for use as a living-object detector.); col.10 lines 47-48 (characteristics of the radar receive signal 304 are dependent upon motion of the living object 108 and or motion of the vehicle 100), 55-56 (the radar system 102 is used to detect very slow motions,)} comprising:
transmitting a plurality of transmission packets { Fig.3 item 302 (radar transmit signal), chirp 306-1, chirp 306-2};
receiving a plurality of received packets { Fig.3 item 304 (radar receive signal), chirp 306-1, chirp 306-2};
compensating a received packet among the plurality of received packets into a compensated received packet { col.5 lines 9-12 (the FMCW radar system uses an adaptive noise threshold, compensating for power drift in the amplitude of the receiver signals)};
performing cross packet cancellation on the compensated received packet { Fig.4-1; Fig.4-2; col.11 lines 55-57 (in FIG. 4-1, the radar system 102 receives radar signals 112-2 through 112-6, which are each an example of a frame 308 of the radar signal 112.); col.12 lines 22-24 (the radar system computes a standard deviation 400 of the amplitude, as a function of range, of the radar signals 112-2 through 112-6); Examiner’s note: “standard deviation” for “cross packet cancellation”};
determining a packet difference between the compensated received packet and another received packet among the plurality of received packets { Fig.4-1; Fig.4-2; col.12 lines 22-26 (the radar system computes a standard deviation 400 of the amplitude, as a function of range, of the radar signals 112-2 through 112-6. FIG. 4-2 illustrates the standard deviation 400 of the radar signal 112 from FIG. 4-1.); Examiner’s note: “standard deviation” for a packet difference }; and
determining whether an object is detected based on the packet difference {Fig.4-2; Fig.5-1 item 512 (Output an indication of a living object detected during the plurality of frames); col.12 lines 32-34 (the standard deviation 400 of the radar signals 112-2 through 112-6 is above the noise threshold, which is indicative of movement.)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method, compensating the received packet includes:
compensating a timing offset of the received packet based on the another received packet { Fig.4-1; col.11 lines 55-57 (in FIG. 4-1, the radar system 102 receives radar signals 112-2 through 112-6, which are each an example of a frame 308 of the radar signal 112.); Examiner’s note: Fig.4-1 shows the alignment of each frame for “compensating a timing offset”}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method, compensating the received packet includes:
compensating a magnitude offset of the received packet based on the another received packet { col.5 lines 9-12 (the FMCW radar system uses an adaptive noise threshold, compensating for power drift in the amplitude of the receiver signals)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method, performing cross packet cancellation includes:
subtracting the another received packet from the received packet to determine the packet difference { Fig.4-1; Fig.4-2; col.12 lines 22-26 (the radar system computes a standard deviation 400 of the amplitude, as a function of range, of the radar signals 112-2 through 112-6. FIG. 4-2 illustrates the standard deviation 400 of the radar signal 112 from FIG. 4-1.); Examiner’s note: calculation of standard deviation includes subtraction}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method,
in response that the packet difference is higher than a first difference threshold, it is determined that the object is detected { Fig.5-1 items 508 (Determine a standard deviation in the respective amplitude for the reflections within the plurality of frames), 510 (Does the standard deviation satisfy a noise threshold?), Yes, 512 (Output an indication of a living object detected during the plurality of frames)}; and
in response that the packet difference is not higher than the first difference threshold, it is determined that the object is not detected { Fig.5-1 item 510 (Does the standard deviation satisfy a noise threshold?), No }.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method,
in motion detection by environments calibration, the plurality of transmission packets are empty packets {Fig.6-2; col.9 lines 32-38 (As the environment within the vehicle 100 changes, the adaptive-threshold adjuster 224 automatically sets the noise threshold used, by the radar system 102, to detect a living object by accounting for the environmental changes. the radar signal 112 may undergo power drift until settling down to a normal level.); Examiner’s note: “noise” for “empty packets”}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) discloses that in the motion detection method,
the steps of compensating and performing cross packet cancellation are iteratively applied to each of the plurality of received packets in a one-by-one process { Fig.5-1 iteration loop }.
Regarding claim 9, Peng (‘998) discloses that An electronic device for motion detection { title (detection of living object); Fig.2 items 102 (radar system), 210 (transceiver), 212 (processing unit), 220 (radar control module); col.4 lines 33-34 (FMCW radar system for use as a living-object detector.); col.10 lines 47-48 (characteristics of the radar receive signal 304 are dependent upon motion of the living object 108 and or motion of the vehicle 100), 55-56 (the radar system 102 is used to detect very slow motions,); Examiner’s note: radar for “device”} including:
a controller { Fig.2 items 212 (processing unit), 220 (radar control module)}, and
a radar transceiver coupled to the controller { Fig.2 items 102 (radar system), 210 (transceiver), 212 (processing unit), 220 (radar control module)},
wherein the controller is configured for:
controlling the radar transceiver for transmitting a plurality of transmission packets;
receiving a plurality of received packets from the radar transceiver;
compensating a received packet among the plurality of received packets into a compensated received packet;
performing cross packet cancellation on the compensated received packet;
determining a packet difference between the compensated received packet and another received packet among the plurality of received packets; and
determining whether an object is detected based on the packet difference.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claims 10-11, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-3, respectively. Accordingly, claims 10-11 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-3, respectively, shown above.
Regarding claims 13-16 Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 5-8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 13-16 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 5-8, respectively, shown above.
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (‘998) as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, above, and further in view of Narayana Moorthy et al. (US 11,740,345, hereafter Narayana Moorthy).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Peng (‘998) does not explicitly disclose “compensating a phase offset of the received packet based on the another received packet”. In the same field of endeavor, Narayana Moorthy (‘345) discloses that in the motion detection method {abstract line 1 (method); col.2 lines 28-31 (the subject object. These characteristics can include range, velocity, angle of arrival, etc., of the subject object when the subject object is in view of the FMCW radar system.)}, compensating the received packet {col.6 lines 8 (compensation), 10 (inter-receiver) } includes:
compensating a phase offset of the received packet based on the another received packet { col.5 line 67 (digital front end (DFE) 222); col.6 lines 6-11 (DFE 222, compensation, inter-receiver gain imbalance, phase imbalance)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Peng (‘998) with the teachings of Narayana Moorthy (‘345) { compensate inter-receiver imbalance (e.g. gain, phase)} to compensate inter-receiver imbalance (e.g. gain, phase). Doing so would balance phase among received chirps so that the IF component corresponding to the object is readily identifiable without influence from spurs, as recognized by Narayana Moorthy (‘345) {col.9 lines 49-50 (the consistency of the phase of the IF components 614, 616, 618 is also dithered); col.12 lines 12-14 (triple dithering is applied, the IF component corresponding to the object is readily identifiable in the plot 1130, without influence from spurs)}.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,740,345 discloses that “compensating a magnitude offset of the received packet based on the another received packet” { col.5 line 67 (digital front end (DFE) 222); col.6 lines 6-10 (DFE 222, compensation, inter-receiver gain imbalance)}, which further support the rejection of claims 3 and 11.
US 2022/0286158 discloses that “by environments calibration, the plurality of transmission packets are empty packets” {[0046] lines 3-6 (during a calibration mode of operation (e.g., during which wireless circuitry 24 stops transmitting transmit signals)} , which further support the rejection of claims 7 and 15.
US 10,903,567 discloses that “in motion detection by environments calibration, the plurality of transmission packets are empty packets { Fig.5; col.3 lines 11-13 (Phased array antennas are suitable for use, and motion detectors.); col.10 lines 52-55 (The UE 120, after receiving and decoding the signaling that indicates the time and length of the calibration period in the message 231, may be configured to withhold transmitting or receiving of signals during these calibration tone periods)}, which further support the rejection of claims 7 and 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights