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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-223110 filed Dec. 28, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-b
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.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: controller 104 or some reasonable equivalent.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78. Thus, system claims are supposed to be differentiated from the prior art in terms of structure. Nothing in the claims suggests that a processor or some type of controller is configured to dictate when and what signal is transmitted by the first and second radar circuitry. Presumably, the first (second) radar circuitry refers to RF frontend components that are part of a transmit and/or receive channel such as items 101-1, 204, and 205 shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3. As such, it is unclear as to whether the features concerning the order of transmission signals (e.g., last limitation of claim 1) would constitute infringement, if patented and used by another entity or person. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 1 – 14 are also rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 (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.
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, 8 – 10, 12 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao (US 20240183968 A1) filed 08/31/2023 in view of Jones (US 20190265353 A1) or Kim (US 20200103517 A1).
As to claims 1 and 15, Rao discloses radar apparatus, comprising:
first radar circuitry, which, in operation, transmits a first transmission signal; and second radar circuitry, which, in operation, transmits a second transmission signal (Fig. 3 shows TX1 – TX3 and Fig. 7A shows separate transceivers 702 and 704.);
wherein a plurality of transmission periods in which the first transmission signal and the second transmission signal are transmitted include a first transmission period in which a transmission timing for the first transmission signal is later than a transmission timing for the second transmission signal by a defined value, and a second transmission period in which the transmission timing for the second transmission signal is later than the transmission timing for the first transmission signal by the defined value (Although Rao teaches the staggering of transmissions of transceivers 702 and 704, Rado does not teach that each of the transmissions of transceivers 702 and 704 switch orders of which comes later from one period to the next.).
In the same field of endeavor, Jones teaches “Alternatively or additionally, at least two of first second and ideally third or all transmission schemes may be transmitted in differing and distinct time periods (e.g. in alternating order). This enables easier identification of which returned signal corresponds to which scheme. Irrespective of whether the transmission schemes are in different time periods or different frequency bands, the frequencies may be transmitted from the same sequence of transmitter elements. This enables a smaller transmitter. Alternatively they may be transmitted from a different sequence of transmitter elements (which may have some or none in common, and which may have physical overlap in a direction corresponding to a linear sequence) (Para. 80).”
In view of the teachings of Jones, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to alternate the order of transmissions in order to change the virtual antenna array in order to increase power and/or resolution depending on whether a target is close or far thus improving accuracy thus reducing antenna size requirements thereby saving on cost and space constraints as well making identification of which radar transmitter/transceiver is responsible for said transmission thus improving accuracy; e.g., spatial and angular direction.
Alternatively, Kim may be used as the first secondary reference in lieu of Jones.
In same field of endeavor, Kim teaches “when the signal transmission order changes, the virtual signals of the virtual antennas also change (Para. 80).”
In view of the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to alternate the order of transmissions in order to change the virtual antenna array in order to increase power and/or resolution depending on whether a target is close or far thus improving accuracy thus reducing antenna size requirements thereby saving on cost and space constraints as well making identification of which radar transmitter/transceiver is responsible for said transmission thus improving accuracy; e.g., spatial and angular direction
As to claims 2 and 16, Rao in view of Jones or Kim teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 1 and 15, wherein the first transmission period and the second transmission period are alternately configured in the plurality of transmission periods (as modified in claim 1 by Jones or modified first by Kim and now modified by Jones wherein the motivation would be to only use two signals, thus the two signals would have to alternate, to reduce amount of processing.).
As to claim 8, Rao in view of Jones or Kim teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal from a plurality of first transmission antennas, the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal from a plurality of second transmission antennas, and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the first transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of first transmission antennas and an interval between Doppler shift amounts applied to a plurality of the second transmission signals transmitted respectively from the plurality of second transmission antennas are different from each other (Rao Paras. 62 – 63 DDM and Fig. 7 transceivers 702 and 704).
As to claim 9, Rao in view of Jones or Kim teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: in the first transmission period, the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal to which a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of a plurality of first transmission antennas, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal from one second transmission antenna, and in the second transmission period, the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal from one of the plurality of first transmission antennas, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal to which a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of a plurality of the second transmission antennas (Rao Paras. 62 – 63 DDM and Fig. 7 transceivers 702 and 704).
As to claim 10, Rao in view of Jones or Kim teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: in the first transmission period, the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal from one first transmission antenna and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal to which a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of a plurality of second transmission antennas, and in the second transmission period, the first radar circuitry transmits the first transmission signal to which a different Doppler shift amount is applied, from each of a plurality of the first transmission antennas, and the second radar circuitry transmits the second transmission signal from one of the plurality of second transmission antennas (Rao Para. 27 “A DDMA FMCW radar system can be used to implement a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar system. In a MIMO radar system with a number N transmitters and a number M receivers, the N signals transmitted by the transmitters are predictable and different across different transmitters.”)
As to claim 12, Rao in view of Jones or Kim teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first transmission period and the second transmission period are set in a case where a target object is present within a predetermined range from the radar apparatus, and are not set in a case where the target object is not present within the predetermined range (Rao Para. 78 “maximum velocity of an object”; Jones Para. 8 unambiguous range)
It would have been obvious to account for unambiguous range to mitigate the effects of range migration/walking thereby improving accuracy.
Claims 3 – 6 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao in view of Jones or Kim and in further view of Kishigami (US 20200393553 A1) published years before effective filing date of instant application.
As to claims 3 and 17, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not explicitly teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1 and 15, wherein the first radar circuitry, which, in operation, demultiplexes a first reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal and a second reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal from a Doppler frequency component of a reception signal in the first transmission period, and demultiplexes a third reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal and a fourth reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal from a Doppler frequency component of a reception signal in the second transmission period, based on the first reflected wave signal.
Continue to next claim.
As to claims 4 and 18, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not explicitly teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1 and 15, wherein the second radar circuitry, which, in operation, demultiplexes a first reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal and a second reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal from a Doppler frequency component of a reception signal in the second transmission period, and demultiplexes a third reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal and a fourth reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal from a Doppler frequency component of a reception signal in the first transmission period, based on the first reflected wave signal.
Continue to next claim.
As to claims 5 and 19, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not explicitly teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1 and 15, wherein the first radar circuitry demultiplexes a reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal from a range component of a reception signal in the first transmission period (Rao Fig. 5 shows range-Doppler matrices thus Rao takes into account range.).
Continue to next claim.
As to claims 6 and 20, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not explicitly teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1 and 15, wherein the second radar circuitry demultiplexes a reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal from a range component of a reception signal in the second transmission period (Rao Fig. 5 shows range-Doppler matrices thus Rao takes into account range.).
Rao teaches Doppler division multiplexing. See Rao Para. 63. The ordinarily skilled artisan understands that demultiplexing would be required to know which signal belonged to which transmit channel to ensure accurate received signal processing with respect to characteristics such as delay (range) and frequency/phase offsets (Doppler/velocity).
In the same field, Kishigami teaches “Note that coded Doppler demultiplexer 212 detects a coded Doppler multiplexed signal for which the number of coded Doppler multiplexes is set to be smaller than N.sub.CM, and performs discrimination of transmit antennas 108 and determination of a target Doppler frequency (Para. 356).”
In view of the teachings of Kishigami, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply Doppler demultiplexing to discriminate which signals belong to which transmitter therefor allowing for improved Doppler detection. This modification would apply to each transmission channel used. Rao also teaches TDMA. See Rao Para. 27. Thus, Rao takes into account the order of transmissions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao in view of Jones or Kim and in further view of official notice.
As to claim 11, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first transmission period and the second transmission period are set to a non-cyclic part of the plurality of transmission periods in which the radar apparatus transmits a transmission signal.
The Examiner interrupts non-cyclic to mean aperiodic. Aperiodic is common to other technological areas such as commination, navigation, etc., thus is not esoteric and given numerous different fields that aperiodic is used in suggests capable of instant demonstration. As such, the Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply aperiodic periods in order to mitigate the risk of jamming thus improving security.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao in view of Jones or Kim and in further view of Gao (US 20210356556 A1).
As to claim 13, Rao in view of Jones does not teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a frequency band of the first transmission signal and the second transmission signal in the first transmission period and the second transmission period is narrower than a frequency band of a transmission signal in another transmission period different from the first transmission period and the second transmission period.
In the same field of endeavor, Gao teaches medium range radar and long range radar at different time periods wherein the long range radar has narrower bandwidth. See Goa Para. 106 and 146.
In view of the teachings of Gao, it would have been obvious to apply different size bandwidths at different periods to allow for better detection of close targets in one period and further targets at another period thus improving accuracy.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao in view of Jones or Kim and in further view of Kim (US 11867792 B2).
As to claim 14, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a transmission time of the first transmission signal and the second transmission signal in the first transmission period and the second transmission period is longer than a transmission time of a transmission signal in another transmission period different from the first transmission period and the second transmission period.
Note that Rao teaches staggering as cited in claim 1, thus the period has to be increasing or decreasing.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim ‘792 teaches “The FMCW signal generated by the FMCW signal generator 515 may have a waveform in which the carrier frequency gradually increases in some time intervals and gradually decreases in other time intervals (col. 12 ll. 21 – 32).”
In view of the teachings of Kim ‘792, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to decrease the time periods in order to remove blind spots thereby improving velocity accuracy.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rao in view of Jones or Kim and in further view of Sadr (US 20170286730 A1).
As to claim 7, Rao in view of Jones or Kim does not teach the radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: correction circuitry, which, in operation, corrects a distance to a target object based on an average value of a distance calculated based on a range component of a reflected wave signal corresponding to the second transmission signal in the first radar circuitry and a distance calculated based on a range component of a reflected wave signal corresponding to the first transmission signal in the second radar circuitry.
In the same field of endeavor, Sadr teaches “Space-time code (STC) methods can be used to determine waveforms to transmit at different transmit antennas to provide peak correlation when a range hypothesis correctly estimates the distance of the tag from the various antennas. (Para. 51).”
In view of the teachings of Sadr, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply STC methods in order to resolve which transmission signals were transmitted by which antennae in order to accurately determine distance thus improving accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights