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 .
Examiner’s note
Please avoid using “their” and “its” in the claimed language (see claims 2-3, 9-11, 15-16, 19).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “a coherent processing interval, CPI,” in lines 2-3. It appears that it should be “a coherent processing interval (CPI)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “a direction of arrival, DoA,” in line 11. It appears that it should be “a direction of arrival (DoA)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “the provided peak list information and DoA snapshot” in line 5. It appears that it should be “the provided associated peak list information and DoA snapshot“. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “aggregated DoA snapshot” in lines 9 and 12. It appears “the” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “a multi-chip-module, MCM,” in line 2. It appears that it should be “a multi-chip-module (MCM)”. 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: 1) " the transceivers" in line 8. It is indefinite because it is not clear which transceivers in the “three transceivers” mentioned in line 2 "the transceivers" in line 8 represents. 2) “received reflected radar signals” in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “received reflected radar signals” in line 11 represents the “receive reflected radar signals” mentioned in lines 3-4. 3) “the received data” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received data” is not mentioned. And it is not clear whether or not “the received data” in line 15 represents the “transmit data” mentioned in line 13. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-13 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitations: 1) “a reflected radar signal” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a reflected radar signal” in line 2 relates to the “reflected radar signals” mentioned in claim 1 line 4. 2) “a range interval of the total range of the reflected radar signal” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “range” is the same as the “distance” mentioned in line 3. 3) “the transceivers” in line 8. It is indefinite because it is not clear which transceivers in the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2 "the transceivers" in line 8 represents. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 5, 8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 4 because each of dependent claims 5,8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitations: 1) “each transceiver” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each transceiver” in line 2 relates to the “each transceiver” mentioned in line 1. 2) “a given transceiver” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a given transceiver” in line 3 relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5 because each of dependent claim 8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 5.
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation “data” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “data” in line 2 is related to. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) “a given transceiver” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a given transceiver” in line 2 relates to the “a given transceiver” mentioned in claim 5 line 3. 2) “a same range interval” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a same range interval” in lines 2-3 relates to the “a same range interval” mentioned in claim 5 line 4. 3) “each of the transceivers” in line 3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear which one of the “each transceiver” mentioned in claim 5 line 2 and the “each transceiver” mentioned in claim 5 line 3 the “each of the transceivers” in line 3 represents; ii) it is not clear whether or not “the transceivers” in line 3 relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2. 4) “the transceiver” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “each of the transceivers” in line 3, the “each transceiver” mentioned in claim 5 line 1 and the “each transceiver” mentioned in claim 5 line 2 “the transceiver” in line 3 represents. 5) “the Doppler dimension” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “Doppler dimension” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitations: 1) “its associated peak list information and DoA snapshot” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how the “associated peak list information and DoA snapshot” is generated. 2) “the provided peak list information and DoA snapshot” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “the at least one transceiver” mentioned in line 2 “the provided peak list information and DoA snapshot” in line 5 is from if “the at least one transceiver” is more than one transceiver. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 10-11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9 because each of dependent claims 10-11 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitations: 1) “the transceivers” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the transceivers” in line 1 relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2. 2) “their respective peak list information and DoA snapshots” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how “their respective peak list information and DoA snapshots” are generated. 3) “the transceiver which is coupled to the external processor and wherein the transceiver which is coupled to the processor” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “the transceiver” in line 3 and line 4 is the same as the “at least one of the three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 lines 12-13; ii) it is not clear whether or not “the processor” in line 4 represents “the external processor” mentioned in lines 3-4. 4) “the peak list information” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “their respective peak list information and DoA snapshots” mentioned in lines 2-3 “the peak list information” in line 6 represents. 5) “the DoA snapshot information” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “DoA snapshot information” is not mentioned. 6) “direction of arrival estimation” in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “direction of arrival estimation” in line 11 is the same as the “direction of arrival estimation” mentioned in claim 9 lines 4-5. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 11 recites the limitations: 1) “an external processor for each transceiver of the radar system” in line 3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “an external processor” in line 3 relates to “the external processor” mentioned in line 1; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “each transceiver of the radar system” relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2. 2) “each transceiver” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each transceiver” in line 4 relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 1 line 2. 3) “provide its peak list information and DoA snapshot” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how “its peak list information and DoA snapshot” is generated. 4) “each external processor” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each external processor” in line 5 include “the external processor” mentioned in line 1. 5) “direction of arrival estimation” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “direction of arrival estimation” in line 6 is the same as the “direction of arrival estimation” mentioned in claim 9 lines 4-5. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations: 1) " the transceivers" in lines 8-9. It is indefinite because it is not clear which transceivers in the “three transceivers” mentioned in line 3 " the transceivers" in lines 8-9 represents. 2) “received reflected radar signals” in line 12. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “received reflected radar signals” in line 12 represents the “receive reflected radar signals” mentioned in lines 4-5. 3) “the received data” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received data” is not mentioned. And it is not clear whether or not “the received data” in line 16 represents the “transmit data” mentioned in line 14. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 15-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14 because each of dependent claims 15-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the limitations: 1) “a reflected radar signal” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a reflected radar signal” in line 2 relates to the “reflected radar signals” mentioned in claim 14 line 5. 2) “a range interval of the total range of the reflected radar signal” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “range” is the same as the “distance” mentioned in line 3. 3) “the transceivers” in line 8. It is indefinite because it is not clear which transceivers in the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 14 line 3 "the transceivers" in line 8 represents. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 18 is also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17 because each of dependent claim 18 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitations: 1) “each transceiver” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each transceiver” in line 2 relates to the “each transceiver” mentioned in line 1. 2) “a given transceiver” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a given transceiver” in line 3 relates to the “three transceivers” mentioned in claim 14 line 3. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Conclusion
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