DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 filed on 30 NOV 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/964,400, filed on 30 NOV 2024, claims priority from foreign application FR2313339, filed on 30 NOV 2023 in the French Republic.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 NOV 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 5A-6B, 9A-9B, an d11A-11B are missing y-axis labels and units.
Fig. 11C is missing labels and units for both the x-axis and y-axis.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “a given series” should be “the given series”
In claim 3, line 4, “the trigger-signal generator” should be “the trigger pulse generator”
In claim 7, line 2, “the temporal profile” should be “a temporal profile”
In claim 10, line 6, “a radar signal” should be “the radar signal”
In claim 10, line 18, “a given series” should be “the given series”
In claim 12, line 2, “a radar signal” should be “the radar signal”
In claim 12, line 9, “the trigger-signal generator” should be “the trigger-pulse generator”
In claim 13, line 7, “the spectral width” should be “a spectral width”
In claim 14, lines 8-9, “the trigger-signal generator” should be “the trigger pulse generator”
In claim 18, line 4, “a given series” should be “the given series”
Appropriate correction is 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 6 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, lines 1-2 recites “greater than or equal to 10 and preferably between 100 and 1000.” The use of the term “preferably” renders the claimed narrower range optional and therefore it is unclear whether the narrower range is a limitation. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 6 has been interpreted as “greater than or equal to 10.”
In claim 10, lines 3-5 recite “a receive channel configured to receive echoes of said radar signal and to demodulate them synchronously with their generation so as to extract time-of-flight information therefrom.” It is unclear to the examiner which limitation in the claim “them” and “their” is intended to refer to. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 10 has been interpreted as “a receive channel configured to receive echoes of said radar signal and to demodulate the received echoes synchronously with the generation of the radar signal so as to extract time-of-flight information therefrom.”
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 10, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
In claim 12, lines 16-18 recite “a mixer configured to receive as input said radar echoes and to demodulate them by mixing with a signal generated by said frequency multiplier in order to obtain a demodulated signal.” It is unclear to the examiner which limitation in the claim “them” is intended to refer to. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 10 has been interpreted as “a mixer configured to receive as input said radar echoes and to demodulate said radar echoes by mixing with a signal generated by said frequency multiplier in order to obtain a demodulated signal.”
In claim 13, lines recite “the receive channel comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes but an acquisition rate suitable for converting a signal at said average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses.” It is unclear to the examiner how the term “but” is intended to be used. It is unclear claim 13 should be interpreted as “the analog-to-digital converter having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes except an acquisition rate suitable for converting a signal…” or “the analog-to-digital converter having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes and an acquisition rate suitable for a signal…” For the purpose of prosecution, claim 13 has been interpreted as, “the receive channel comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes and an acquisition rate suitable for converting a signal at said average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses.”
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 13, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
In claim 14, lines 16-18 recite “a mixer configured to receive as input said radar echoes and to demodulate them by mixing with a signal generated by said frequency multiplier in order to obtain a demodulated signal.” It is unclear to the examiner which limitation in the claim “them” is intended to refer to. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 10 has been interpreted as “a mixer configured to receive as input said radar echoes and to demodulate said radar echoes by mixing with a signal generated by said frequency multiplier in order to obtain a demodulated signal.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30).
Regarding claim 1, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
A device for generating a radar signal (Zarudniev et al. radar measuring device 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
a generator (Zarudniev et al. circuit 102, Fig. 1) of periodically repeated series of trigger pulses (sPRF), the pulses of a given series having a linearly variable temporal spacing (Zarudniev et al. “the radar signal RFIN(t) generated by the circuit 102 corresponds to a signal with a train of pulses coherently modulated.” - ¶ [0081]; pulses have a linearly variable temporal spacing Fig. 2); and
an oscillator (Zarudniev et al. injection-locked oscillator (ILO) 110, Fig. 1) configured to receive as input said trigger pulses and to generate a train of periodic oscillations in correspondence with each said trigger pulse (Zarudniev et al. “A second output of the power divider 102 is coupled to an input of an injection-locked oscillator, or ILO, 110.” - ¶ [0098]);
wherein said oscillator has a frequency that varies as a function of a control signal (Vtune) (Zarudniev et al. “To modify the locking frequency band of the ILO 110, the control circuit 128 is configured to apply , on a control input of the ILO 110, a control voltage, called Vctrl, whose value determines the central frequency fc of the locking frequency band of the ILO 110.” - ¶ [0109]); and
the device also comprises a generator of said control signal (Zarudniev et al. control circuit 128, Fig 1), which is suitable for varying linearly in time the frequency of the oscillator (120) from one train of periodic oscillations to another for trains of periodic oscillations triggered by trigger pulses belonging to a given series (Zarudniev et al “a sinusoidal signal whose frequency varies linearly…” - ¶ [0093]; “the device includes a control circuit 128 configured to modify at each period T of the radar signal RFIN(t), the locking frequency band of the ILO 110 such that, over several successive periods of the radar signal RFIN(t)…” - ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
A radar device (Zarudniev et al. radar measuring device 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a transmit channel comprising a device for generating a radar signal (Zarudniev et al. transmit channel is formed by emitting antenna 108, power amplifier 106, power divider 104, circuit 102, Fig. 1); and
a receive channel (Zarudniev et al. receive channel is formed by receiving antenna, low-noise amplifier 116, mixer 118, filtering circuit 122, analog-to-digital converter 124, circuit 126 Fig. 1) configured to receive echoes of said radar signal and to demodulate them synchronously with their generation (Zarudniev et al. “coherence between the emitted and received radar signals is preserved in the measuring band.” - ¶ [0020]) so as to extract time-of-flight information therefrom (Zarudniev et al. delay τ1 imparted on the radar signal reflected on the first reflector… delay τ2 imparted on the radar signal reflected on the second reflector…” - ¶ [0100]);
wherein said device for generating a radar signal comprises:
a generator (Zarudniev et al. circuit 102, Fig. 1) of periodically repeated series of trigger pulses (sPRF), the pulses of a given series having a linearly variable temporal spacing (Zarudniev et al. “the radar signal RFIN(t) generated by the circuit 102 corresponds to a signal with a train of pulses coherently modulated.” - ¶ [0081]; pulses have a linearly variable temporal spacing Fig. 2); and
an oscillator (Zarudniev et al. injection-locked oscillator (ILO) 110, Fig. 1) configured to receive as input said trigger pulses and to generate a train of periodic oscillations in correspondence with each said trigger pulse (Zarudniev et al. “A second output of the power divider 102 is coupled to an input of an injection-locked oscillator, or ILO, 110.” - ¶ [0098]);
wherein said oscillator has a frequency that varies as a function of a control signal (Vtune) (Zarudniev et al. “To modify the locking frequency band of the ILO 110, the control circuit 128 is configured to apply , on a control input of the ILO 110, a control voltage, called Vctrl, whose value determines the central frequency fc of the locking frequency band of the ILO 110.” - ¶ [0109]); and
the device also comprises a generator (Zarudniev et al. control circuit 128, Fig 1) of said control signal, which is suitable for varying linearly in time the frequency of the oscillator from one train of periodic oscillations to another for trains of periodic oscillations triggered by trigger pulses belonging to a given series (Zarudniev et al “a sinusoidal signal whose frequency varies linearly…” - ¶ [0093]; “the device includes a control circuit 128 configured to modify at each period T of the radar signal RFIN(t), the locking frequency band of the ILO 110 such that, over several successive periods of the radar signal RFIN(t)…” - ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 18, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
A method for generating a radar signal comprising generating periodically repeated series of trains of periodic oscillations, the trains of oscillations of a given series having a linearly variable temporal spacing (Zarudniev et al. “the radar signal RFIN(t) generated by the circuit 102 corresponds to a signal with a train of pulses coherently modulated.” - ¶ [0081]; pulses have a linearly variable temporal spacing Fig. 2);
the frequency of the oscillations varying linearly from one train of periodic oscillations to another in a given series (Zarudniev et al “a sinusoidal signal whose frequency varies linearly…” - ¶ [0093]; “the device includes a control circuit 128 configured to modify at each period T of the radar signal RFIN(t), the locking frequency band of the ILO 110 such that, over several successive periods of the radar signal RFIN(t)…” - ¶ [0109]).
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.
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) 2, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Casse et al. (FR 2738352 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30).
Regarding claim 2, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 1
Casse et al. discloses:
wherein the oscillator and the generator of said control signal are configured so that the average frequency of the oscillations of said trains of periodic oscillations is a multiple, by a factor K>1, of an average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses (Casse et al. “To obtain a frequency variation satisfying relation (2), and taking into account the frequency multiplier 78, it suffices to have in 62 a signal of frequency f which varies according to the law:
f
=
p
f
R
+
m
N
f
R
2
t
…” – p. 9, third paragraph; where N is the multiple of multiplier 78, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Casse et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 2 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the oscillator and the generator of said control signal are configured so that the average frequency of the oscillations of said trains of periodic oscillations is a multiple, by a factor K>1, of an average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses. This feature is disclosed by Casse et al. where “To obtain a frequency variation satisfying relation (2), and taking into account the frequency multiplier 78, it suffices to have in 62 a signal of frequency f which varies according to the law:
f
=
p
f
R
+
m
N
f
R
2
t
…” (Casse et al. p. 9, third paragraph; where N is the multiple of multiplier 78, Fig. 6). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 2
Casse et al. discloses:
wherein the factor K is greater than or equal to 10 and preferably between 100 and 1000 (Casse et al. N=100, p. 9, eighth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Casse et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 6 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 2. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the factor K is greater than or equal to 10 and preferably between 100 and 1000. This feature is disclosed by Casse et al. where “To obtain a frequency variation satisfying relation (2), and taking into account the frequency multiplier 78, it suffices to have in 62 a signal of frequency f which varies according to the law:
f
=
p
f
R
+
m
N
f
R
2
t
…” (Casse et al. p. 9, third and eighth paragraphs; where N is the multiple of multiplier 78 and N=100, Fig. 6). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 1
Casse et al. discloses:
wherein said oscillator is a microwave oscillator (Casse et al. “the frequency f varying from 10.025 GHz to 10.525 GHz…” – p. 9).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Casse et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 8 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein said oscillator is a microwave oscillator. This feature is disclosed by Casse et al. where “the frequency f varying from 10.025 GHz to 10.525 GHz…” (Casse et al. p. 9, eighth paragraph). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Mohamadi (US 2009/0102703 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 1
Mohamadi discloses:
a pulse shaper for modifying the temporal profile of said trains of periodic oscillations (Mohamadi “It will be appreciated that a pulse-shaping circuit having selectable delay lines may modulate pulse position through an appropriate combination of the delay lines. In this fashion, coded transmissions may be achieved to enable a plurality of separate channels.” - ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mohamadi into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 7 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Mohamadi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose IR-UWB radar. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose a pulse shaper for modifying the temporal profile of said trains of periodic oscillations. This feature is disclosed by Mohamadi where “It will be appreciated that a pulse-shaping circuit having selectable delay lines may modulate pulse position through an appropriate combination of the delay lines. In this fashion, coded transmissions may be achieved to enable a plurality of separate channels.” (Mohamadi ¶ [0031]). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Mohamadi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an integrated, low-cost solution that enables millimeter range resolution and beamforming capabilities (Mohamadi ¶ [0039]).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0233076 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 1
Chen et al. discloses:
a device for applying phase scrambling to said trains of periodic oscillations (Chen et al. “The example radar system 2100 of FIG. 21 includes the example phase code analyzer 2114 to enable slow time phase scrambling of the individual chirps generated by the example transmitter signal generator 2112.” - ¶ [0080]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chen et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Chen et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radars that use linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose a device for applying phase scrambling to said trains of periodic oscillations. This feature is disclosed by Chen et al. where “The example radar system 2100 of FIG. 21 includes the example phase code analyzer 2114 to enable slow time phase scrambling of the individual chirps generated by the example transmitter signal generator 2112.” (Chen et al. ¶ [0080]). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Chen et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement processing “based on cross-correlation, fast Fourier transform (FFT), and element-wise operations that may be implemented in computationally efficient manners.” (Chen et al. ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 10
Chen et al. discloses:
wherein the device for generating a radar signal of the transmit channel comprises a device for applying phase scrambling (Chen et al. “The example radar system 2100 of FIG. 21 includes the example phase code analyzer 2114 to enable slow time phase scrambling of the individual chirps generated by the example transmitter signal generator 2112.” - ¶ [0080]) and the receive channel comprises a phase-descrambling device (Chen et al. “Further, in some examples, the phase code analyzer 2114 analyzes echo signals received at the receivers to descramble the signals based on the conjugate of the scrambling code applied at the time the signal was transmitted by a transmitter 2102.” - ¶ [0080]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chen et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Chen et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radars that use linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 10. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device for generating a radar signal of the transmit channel comprises a device for applying phase scrambling and the receive channel comprises a phase-descrambling device. This feature is disclosed by Chen et al. where “The example radar system 2100 of FIG. 21 includes the example phase code analyzer 2114 to enable slow time phase scrambling of the individual chirps generated by the example transmitter signal generator 2112. Further, in some examples, the phase code analyzer 2114 analyzes echo signals received at the receivers to descramble the signals based on the conjugate of the scrambling code applied at the time the signal was transmitted by a transmitter 2102.” (Chen et al. ¶ [0080]). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Chen et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement processing “based on cross-correlation, fast Fourier transform (FFT), and element-wise operations that may be implemented in computationally efficient manners.” (Chen et al. ¶ [0036]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Miller et al. (US 6,925,108 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the receive channel comprises an amplifier (Zarudniev et al. low noise amplifier 116, Fig. 1)
Miller et al. discloses:
an automatic gain control for compensating for variations in the intensity of the received echoes (Miller et al. “The incoming signal is then normalized to fall within a particular dynamic range via AGC (automatic gain control, such as a variable attenuator) 104 to produce an acceptable signal level.” - Col. 13, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Miller et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 11 above. Both Zarudniev et al. and Miller et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose ultrawideband radar devices. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 10. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose an automatic gain control for compensating for variations in the intensity of the received echoes. This feature is disclosed by Miller et al. where “The incoming signal is then normalized to fall within a particular dynamic range via AGC (automatic gain control, such as a variable attenuator) 104 to produce an acceptable signal level.” (Miller et al. Col. 13, lines 9-13). The combination of Zarudniev et al. and Miller et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to produce an acceptable signal level.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Casse et al. (FR 2738352 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) and Mohamadi (US 2009/0102703 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Zarudniev et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 10, wherein:
the receive channel comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter (Zarudniev et al. analog-to-digital converter 124, Fig. 1)
Casse et al. discloses:
wherein the oscillator and the generator of said control signal are configured so that the average frequency of the oscillations of said trains of periodic oscillations is a multiple, by a factor K>1, of an average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses (Casse et al. “To obtain a frequency variation satisfying relation (2), and taking into account the frequency multiplier 78, it suffices to have in 62 a signal of frequency f which varies according to the law:
f
=
p
f
R
+
m
N
f
R
2
t
…” – p. 9; where N is the multiple of multiplier 78, Fig. 6)
Mohamadi et al. discloses:
the receive channel comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter (Mohamadi et al. ADC 405, Fig. 4) having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes but an acquisition rate suitable for converting a signal at said average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses (Mohamadi et al. “As known in the art, an analog-to-digital converter is triggered by a clock signal such that in response to a rising (or falling) clock edge in the clock signal, an analog-to-digital converter samples its input signal and converts the sample into a digitized value. In the following scheme, the ADC clock is adjusted such that ADC 405 takes successive samples on a pulse-to-pulse basis rather than taking multiple samples with regard to a single pulse.” - ¶ [0035]), said converter being synchronized with said trigger pulses through a delay line (Mohamadi et al. “A multiplexer 510 selects from the output signals from the various delay circuits to provide an ADC clock 515.” - ¶ [0035])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mohamadi into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 13 above. Zarudniev et al., Casse et al. and Mohamadi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose Zarudniev et al. and Mohamadi both disclose ultrawideband impulse radar systems, and Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 10. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose the receive channel comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter having an analog bandwidth at least equal to the spectral width of said received echoes but an acquisition rate suitable for converting a signal at said average repetition frequency of the trigger pulses, said converter being synchronized with said trigger pulses through a delay line. This feature is disclosed by Mohamadi where “A multiplexer 510 selects from the output signals from the various delay circuits to provide an ADC clock 515.” (Mohamadi et al. ¶ [0035]). The combination of Zarudniev et al., Casse et al. and Mohamadi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph) and provide an integrated, low-cost solution that enables millimeter range resolution and beamforming capabilities (Mohamadi ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Zarudniev et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 13
Mohamadi discloses:
wherein said delay line has a variable delay (Mohamadi “Each delay line may be selectable by coupling to the combining amplifier through a transistor switch… Each delay line may be selectable by coupling to the combining amplifier through a transistor switch.” - ¶ [0049]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mohamadi into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 15 above. Zarudniev et al., Casse et al. and Mohamadi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as Zarudniev et al. and Mohamadi both disclose ultrawideband impulse radar systems, and Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation. Zarudniev et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 13. However, Zarudniev et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein said delay line has a variable delay. This feature is disclosed by Mohamadi where “Each delay line may be selectable by coupling to the combining amplifier through a transistor switch… Each delay line may be selectable by coupling to the combining amplifier through a transistor switch.” (Mohamadi ¶ [0049]). The combination of Zarudniev et al., Casse et al. and Mohamadi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph) and provide an integrated, low-cost solution that enables millimeter range resolution and beamforming capabilities (Mohamadi ¶ [0039]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarudniev et al. (US 2022/0163648 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) in view of Casse et al. (FR 2738352 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 2024-11-30) and Mohamadi (US 2009/0102703 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 6,925,108 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Zarudniev et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Zarudniev et al. has been struck-through]
The device as claimed in claim 13,
Miller et al. discloses:
wherein the receive channel comprises a plurality of said analog-to-digital converters (Miller et al. plurality of A/Ds 108, Fig. 9A) synchronized (Miller et al. "After the initial acquisition of the received signal phase, the phase of the incoming signal must be tracked to ensure that synchronization in maintained... FIG. 9A shows a block diagram of a system employed for the purposes of tracking the phase of the incoming signal." - Col 16, lines 47-53) with said trigger pulses through respective delay lines (Miller et al. delay blocks 118, 120, Fig. 9A) introducing different delays (Miller et al. "Similar operations may be performed on timing generators 72 -7N, so that each receiver can recover the signal delayed by different amounts, such as the delays caused by multipath (i.e., scattering along different paths via reflecting off of local objects)." - Col. 11, lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Miller et al. into the invention of Zarudniev et al. to yield the invention of claim 16 above. Both Zarudniev et al., Casse et al., Mohamadi and Miller et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as Zarudniev et al. and Mohamadi both disclose ultrawideband impulse radar systems, and Zarudniev et al. and Casse et al. both disclose radar with linear frequency modulation, and Miller et al. discloses ultrawideband radar devices. Zarudniev et al. discloses the invention of claim 13. However, Zarudniev et al. as modified above fails to explicitly disclose wherein the receive channel comprises a plurality of said analog-to-digital converters synchronized with said trigger pulses through respective delay lines introducing different delays. This feature is disclosed by Miller et al. where "After the initial acquisition of the received signal phase, the phase of the incoming signal must be tracked to ensure that synchronization in maintained... FIG. 9A shows a block diagram of a system employed for the purposes of tracking the phase of the incoming signal." (Miller et al. Col 16, lines 47-53; Col. 11, lines 30-34; Fig. 9A) . The combination of Zarudniev et al., Casse et al., Mohamadi and Miller et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to retain the high resolving power in distance and eliminate echoes from fixed reflectors by Doppler processing (Casse et al. p. 2, fifth paragraph), provide an integrated, low-cost solution that enables millimeter range resolution and beamforming capabilities (Mohamadi ¶ [0039]) and combine “timing, phase, frequency, and amplitude modulation adds extra degrees of freedom to the spreading code functions, allowing greater optimization of the cross-correlation and autocorrelation characteristics” (Miller et al. Col. 10, lines 32-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 12 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 3, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, wherein said generator of series of trigger pulses comprises a first signal generator and a trigger-pulse generator, the first signal generator being configured to generate a first signal consisting of periodic repetitions of trains of chirped oscillations, the trigger-signal generator being configured to receive as input said first signal and to generate said trigger pulses synchronously with the oscillations of said first signal.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as depending from claim 3.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, wherein said generator of series of trigger pulses comprises a first signal generator and a trigger-pulse generator, the first signal generator being configured to generate a first signal consisting of periodic repetitions of trains of chirped oscillations, the trigger-signal generator being configured to receive as input said first signal and to generate said trigger pulses synchronously with the oscillations of said first signal.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, wherein said generator of series of trigger pulses comprises a first signal generator and a trigger-pulse generator, the first signal generator being configured to generate a first signal consisting of periodic repetitions of trains of chirped oscillations, the trigger-signal generator being configured to receive as input said first signal and to generate said trigger pulses synchronously with the oscillations of said first signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
25 JUL 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights