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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-5, 9-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (USPN 20180365975) in view of Hung et al (USPN 20090232230).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses
a chip, wherein the chip comprises at least one processor coupled to one or more memories, the one or more memories storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (FPGA/ASIC comprising processor executing instructions stored in memory to perform [0334, 0332, 0323, 0072]
obtaining a first multi-carrier signal (receiving a wireless signal, collecting CFR/CSI per subcarrier [0008, 0107, 0108, 0323]
performing compensation on the first multi-carrier signal, based on a channel state information phase difference of the multi-carrier signal, to obtain a second multi-carrier signal (linear phase calibration forms G(Δ) [k] =h[k]* x h[k+ Δ], with signature vector G(Δ) obtained directly from channel state information vector h, obtains β and βres [0283-0291]
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero
Hung discloses wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero (delay phase comes from subcarrier-pair phase differences and applied as a rotation arriving at zero [0028-0035, 0021, 0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero” as taught by Hung into Xu’s system with the motivation to offer an optimal delay phase and higher order mechanism that works in large delay spread (Hung, paragraph [0039, 0049, 0050])
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 9
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing programming instructions for execution by at least one processor, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computer to perform operations comprising: (memory comprising instructions that are executed by processor to perform [0332, 0334]
obtaining a first multi-carrier signal (receiving a wireless signal, collecting CFR/CSI per subcarrier [0008, 0107, 0108, 0323]
performing compensation on the first multi-carrier signal, based on a channel state information phase difference of the multi-carrier signal, to obtain a second multi-carrier signal (linear phase calibration forms G(Δ) [k] =h[k]* x h[k+ Δ], with signature vector G(Δ) obtained directly from channel state information vector h, obtains β and βres [0283-0291]
CSI can also be referred to as CFR [0089]
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero
Hung discloses wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero (delay phase comes from subcarrier-pair phase differences and applied as a rotation arriving at zero [0028-0035, 0021, 0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a channel state information phase difference of the second multi-carrier signal is zero” as taught by Hung into Xu’s system with the motivation to offer an optimal delay phase and higher order mechanism that works in large delay spread (Hung, paragraph [0039, 0049, 0050])
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, Xu discloses “compensation on channel state information of the first multi- carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal” CSI phase offset compensation [0261-0263, 0276-0287]
Xu does not expressly disclose “performing true time delay compensation”
Hung discloses rotation is explicitly a time-domain shift [0012, 0051, 0023-0026]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “performing true time delay compensation” as taught by Hung into Xu’s system with the motivation to offer an optimal delay phase and higher order mechanism that works in large delay spread (Hung, paragraph [0039, 0049, 0050])
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, Xu discloses “performing phase compensation on the first multi-carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal” initial phase offset cleaning [0288-0293]
Regarding claims 4, 12, 20, Xu does not expressly disclose “performing polynomial fit on the first multi-carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal”
Hung discloses phase rotation and Nth-order polynomial processing of CSI [0022, 0036-0038]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “performing polynomial fit on the first multi-carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal” as taught by Hung into Xu’s system with the motivation to offer an optimal delay phase and higher order mechanism that works in large delay spread (Hung, paragraph [0039, 0049, 0050])
Regarding claims 5, 13, Xu discloses CSI can also be referred to as CFR [0089]
Xu does not expressly disclose “performing polynomial fit on channel state information of the first multi-carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal”
Hung discloses polynomial applied to channel estimates H(f) at pilots [0018, 0036-0038]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “performing polynomial fit on channel state information of the first multi-carrier signal, based on the channel state information phase difference of the first multi-carrier signal, to obtain the second multi-carrier signal” as taught by Hung into Xu’s system with the motivation to offer an optimal delay phase and higher order mechanism that works in large delay spread (Hung, paragraph [0039, 0049, 0050])
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu view of Hung as applied to claims 1, 9, and in further view of Lee (USPN 20220224380).
Regarding claims 6, 14, combined system of Xu and Hung does not expressly disclose “performing imaging based on a plurality of second multi-carrier signals to obtain an imaged image”
Lee discloses OFDM-based imaging radar with range-doppler processing with spatial processing to form an image [0229, 0152-0162, 0271], FIGs. 25-30
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “performing imaging based on a plurality of second multi-carrier signals to obtain an imaged image” as taught by Lee into combined system of Xu and Hung system with the motivation to generate a map image using MIMO signals [0004, 0008]
Regarding claims 7, 15, Xu discloses “averaging the plurality of second multi-carrier signals to obtain an average of the plurality of second multi-carrier signals;” averaging received probe waveforms/channel responses, calibrated CSIs are consistent and aligned [0078, 0083, 0236, 0239]
Xu does not expressly disclose “and performing imaging based on the average to obtain the image”
Lee discloses OFDM-based imaging radar with range-doppler processing with spatial processing to form an image [0229, 0152-0162, 0271], FIGs. 25-30
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “and performing imaging based on the average to obtain the image” as taught by Lee into combined system of Xu and Hung system with the motivation to generate a map image using MIMO signals [0004, 0008]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Svensson et al (USPN 20060239178) FIG. 13
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights