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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200081110 hereinafter Nam) in view of Wu et al. (US 20220171049 hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Nam teaches A device comprising:
a plurality of transmit antenna s (fig 4); and
a plurality of transmitters coupled to the plurality of transmit antennas and including respective phase shifters (Abstract “The phase shifters shift a phase of each chirp on a transmit branch.”), the respective phase shifters configured to apply respective phase changes between chirps of a frame (0058 “Thus, for this transmit branch the first chirp of a frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the first element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 0), the second chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the second element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. PD.sub.ID), the third chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the third element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 2PD.sub.ID) and the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID).”) consecutively distributed along divisions of the phase spectrum (0076 “As shown in FIG. 21, 12 virtual channels are formed by 3 transmitters and 4 receivers, and the range Doppler map (left side of FIG. 21) obtained for each receiver will show three peaks corresponding to the three transmitters that are separated by −96 and 32 indexes with reference to TX1.”; 0075 “a modulation scheme is assumed wherein the shifts between the transmitters are [0, −96, +32].”).
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches
such that a phase spectrum for the plurality of transmitters is divided into a plurality of bands (0029 “As depicted, each transmitter TX.sub.1-TX.sub.4 has an allocated spectrum section 311-314 which is effectively centered around a corresponding zero-radial velocity frequency (e.g., 0, π/2, π, and 3π/2).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Nam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Wu 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Nam and Wu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Nam teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the respective phase changes are distributed along respective ones of the divisions of the phase spectrum (0053 “The phase shifters 104 may shift a phase of the chirps on different transmit branches by a different amount.”).
Regarding claim 5, Nam teaches The device of claim 1,
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches
wherein the device includes a Doppler division multiple-access radar device (title “Co-Prime Coded (CPC) Doppler Division Multiplexing (DDM) MIMO Radar Method And System”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Nam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Wu 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Nam and Wu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Nam teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of transmitters includes:
a first transmitter having a first index and including a first phase shifter, the first phase shifter (fig 9) configured to apply a first phase change between the chirps of the frame (0058 “the first chirp of a frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the first element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 0),”);
a second transmitter having a second index consecutive to the first index and including a second phase shifter, the second phase shifter configured to apply a second phase change between the chirps of the frame (0058 “Thus, for this transmit branch the first chirp of a frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the first element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 0), the second chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the second element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. PD.sub.ID), the third chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the third element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 2PD.sub.ID) and the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID)”); and
a third transmitter having a third index consecutive to the second index and including a third phase shifter, the third phase shifter configured to apply a third phase change between the chirps of the frame (0058 “Thus, for this transmit branch the first chirp of a frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the first element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 0), the second chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the second element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. PD.sub.ID), the third chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the third element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 2PD.sub.ID) and the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID)”),
a first difference between the first phase change and the second phase change being different than a second difference between the second phase change and the third phase change (0075 “chirps are transmitted with a set of phase-modulation vectors where the set of phase shifts utilized in the set of phase modulation vectors is asymmetrically distributed. As a result, the spectral distance between transmitters (i.e. the shifts incurred in the Doppler domain by the phase shift on the transmit branches) may be asymmetrically distributed.”).
Regarding claim 11, Nam teaches A device comprising:
a first transmitter having a first index in an array of transmitters (fig 4), the first transmitter configured to transmit a first frame of chirps (0058 “transmit branch the first chirp of a frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the first element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. 0)”)
having a first phase change between the chirps of the first frame (0058 “the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID). For each of the multiple transmitter branches, the chirps are transmitted with a phase shifts in accordance with the elements of the respective phase modulation vector corresponding to the respective transmit branch”);
a second transmitter having a second index in the array of transmitters consecutive to the first index (fig 4), the second transmitter configured to transmit a second frame of chirps having a second phase change between the chirps of the second frame (0058 “the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID). For each of the multiple transmitter branches, the chirps are transmitted with a phase shifts in accordance with the elements of the respective phase modulation vector corresponding to the respective transmit branch”); and
a third transmitter having a third index in the array of transmitters consecutive to the second index, the third transmitter configured to transmit a third frame of chirps having a third phase change between the chirps of the third frame (fig 4; 0058 “the Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID). For each of the multiple transmitter branches, the chirps are transmitted with a phase shifts in accordance with the elements of the respective phase modulation vector corresponding to the respective transmit branch”),
a first difference between the first phase change and the second phase change being different (0075 “A set of phase shifts is asymmetrically distributed if the absolute value of the difference between respective pairs of phase shifts are not equal for all possible pairs of phase shifts.”).
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches
a first difference between the first phase change and the second phase change being different than a second difference between the second phase change and the third phase change (0042 “The progressive phase coding in slow time for the first transmitter TX.sub.1 will be evaluated at k=0, at k=17 for the second transmitter TX.sub.2, and at k=43 for the third transmitter TX.sub.3 (i.e., 0° from chirp-to-chirp for TX.sub.1, 95.625° from chirp-to-chirp for TX.sub.2, and 241.875° from chirp-to-chirp for TX.sub.3).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Nam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Wu 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Nam and Wu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Nam teaches A method comprising:
applying, with respective phase shifters of a plurality of transmitters (fig 9), (0076 “As shown in FIG. 21, 12 virtual channels are formed by 3 transmitters and 4 receivers, and the range Doppler map (left side of FIG. 21) obtained for each receiver will show three peaks corresponding to the three transmitters that are separated by −96 and 32 indexes with reference to TX1.”; 0075 “a modulation scheme is assumed wherein the shifts between the transmitters are [0, −96, +32].”); and
transmitting, via a plurality of transmit antennas coupled to the plurality of transmitters, respective frames of chirps having the respective phase changes (0066 “In the system in FIG. 9, each transmitter 122 has a phase shifter 104 before the antenna 118a and transmits signals with a different phase modulation generated from the phase shifter 104. Each phase shifter 104 changes the initial phase of every chirp in the FMCW waveform according to the phase modulation vector.”).
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches
respective phase changes between chirps of a frame such that a phase spectrum for the plurality of transmitters is divided into a plurality of bands (0029 “As depicted, each transmitter TX.sub.1-TX.sub.4 has an allocated spectrum section 311-314 which is effectively centered around a corresponding zero-radial velocity frequency (e.g., 0, π/2, π, and 3π/2).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Nam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Wu 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Nam and Wu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-9, 12-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200081110 hereinafter Nam) in view of Wu et al. (US 20220171049 hereinafter Wu) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mani et al. (US 20230072441 hereinafter Mani).
Regarding claim 2, Nam teaches The device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mani teaches
wherein a first number of bands in the plurality of bands is equal to a sum of a second number of transmitters in the plurality of transmitters and a third number of the divisions of the phase spectrum along which none of the respective phase changes are to be distributed (claim 2 “the multiple spectrum bands include a spectrum band respectively associated with each transmission channel of the transmission channels and an empty spectrum band that is not associated with one of the transmission channels.”; Abstract “programmed frequency is configured to cause the Doppler domain spectrum to include a number of spectrum bands greater than the number of transmission channels.”; 0036 “FIG. 2. The spectrum 400 includes a band A corresponding to the transmit channel 202A, a band B corresponding to the transmit channel 202B, a band C corresponding to the transmit channel 202N, and a band D that is an empty band, as described elsewhere herein”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Nam teaches The device of claim 2,
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches
wherein each band in the plurality of bands is offset from each other band in the plurality of bands by a multiple of (2π/N), and N is the first number of bands (fig 3; 0029 “As depicted, each transmitter TX.sub.1-TX.sub.4 has an allocated spectrum section 311-314 which is effectively centered around a corresponding zero-radial velocity frequency (e.g., 0, π/2, π, and 3π/2).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Nam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar system (Wu 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Nam and Wu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Nam teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the frame is a first frame,
at least one receiver configured to receive second frames of reflected chirps from an object within a field of view of the device (fig 4); and
at least one processor circuit to generate a Doppler representation of the second frames of the reflected chirps, the Doppler representation including a plurality of second bands where the object is represented in at least a portion of the plurality of the second bands and the at least three of the respective phase changes (fig 5; 0004 “perform first FFT processing on each chirp received on each antenna in the digital domain and perform second FFT processing on results of the first FFT processing over the set of chirps.”) being non-consecutively distributed along the divisions of the phase spectrum (0075 “a modulation scheme is assumed wherein the shifts between the transmitters are [0, −96, +32].”)
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mani teaches
the plurality of bands is a plurality of first bands (Abstract “the frame of reflected chirps having a Doppler domain spectrum that includes multiple spectrum bands”)
the Doppler representation to include at least two non-contiguous bands in which the object is not represented (0004 “the Doppler domain spectrum to include an empty spectrum band, and perform velocity disambiguation of the object based on the Doppler domain spectrum.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Nam teaches The device of claim 7, .
Nam does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mani teaches
wherein the plurality of second bands of the Doppler representation includes a plurality of third bands and the at least two non-contiguous bands, each of the plurality of transmitters associated with one of the plurality of third bands, the at least two non-contiguous bands not associated with any of the plurality of transmitters (Mani claim 2 “wherein the multiple spectrum bands include a spectrum band respectively associated with each transmission channel of the transmission channels and an empty spectrum band that is not associated with one of the transmission channels.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Nam teaches The device of claim 7, wherein the reflected chirps are first reflected chirps, the Doppler representation is a first Doppler representation, and, based on determining that the first Doppler representation includes less than a threshold number of objects, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to cause the respective phase shifters of the plurality of transmitters (Nam 0070 “The peak signals of the second FFT processing whose values are above a threshold level (for example using a concept known as a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) threshold) may be taken as possible target candidates Among the target candidates, a peak is selected for TX1 (1302). For example, a peak signal with a smaller index may be initially assumed as a reflected signal associated with TX1.”) to adjust the respective phase changes to cause a second Doppler representation of third frames of second reflected chirps to include a larger number of non-contiguous bands in which the object is not represented (Mani claim 2 “wherein the multiple spectrum bands include a spectrum band respectively associated with each transmission channel of the transmission channels and an empty spectrum band that is not associated with one of the transmission channels.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Nam teaches The device of claim 11, further including:
at least one receiver configured to receive fourth frames of reflected chirps from an object within a field of view of the device (0058 “Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID).”); and
at least one processor circuit to generate a Doppler representation of the fourth frames of the reflected chirps, the Doppler representation including bands where the object is represented in at least a portion of the bands and the first difference being different than the second difference (figs 5-6; 0060 “The set of phase modulation vectors applied to different transmitters/transmit branches may be a combination of any of N.sub.P from Table 3 and Table 4.”).
Regarding claim 13, Nam teaches The device of claim 12, wherein the bands of the Doppler representation include first bands and the at least two non-contiguous bands, each of the first transmitter, the second transmitter, and the third transmitter associated with one of the first bands, the at least two non-contiguous bands not associated with any transmitter of the device (Mani 0004 “the Doppler domain spectrum to include an empty spectrum band, and perform velocity disambiguation of the object based on the Doppler domain spectrum.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Nam teaches The device of claim 12, wherein the first difference being different than the second difference causes the Doppler representation to include:
a first band in which the object is not represented; a second band contiguous with the first band and in which the object is represented; and a third band contiguous with the second band and in which the object is not represented (Mani 0004 “the Doppler domain spectrum to include an empty spectrum band, and perform velocity disambiguation of the object based on the Doppler domain spectrum.”; 0036 “The object 402 appears in band B, band C, and band A, separated from band C by band D”; claim 5 “The method of claim 1, wherein the programmed frequency has a value of [see equation 1] where k is an index value of the transmission channel transmitting the frame of chirps, N is a number of transmitters in the radar system, a is a constant integer, and r is a number of empty bands to include in the Doppler domain representation of the frame of reflected chirps.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Nam teaches The device of claim 12, wherein the reflected chirps are first reflected chirps, the Doppler representation is a first Doppler representation, and, based on determining that the first Doppler representation includes less than a threshold number of objects (Nam 0070 “The peak signals of the second FFT processing whose values are above a threshold level (for example using a concept known as a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) threshold) may be taken as possible target candidates Among the target candidates, a peak is selected for TX1 (1302). For example, a peak signal with a smaller index may be initially assumed as a reflected signal associated with TX1.”), one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to cause respective phase shifters of the array of transmitters to adjust respective phase changes to cause a second Doppler representation of fifth frames of second reflected chirps to include a larger number of non-contiguous bands in which the object is not represented (Mani claim 2 “wherein the multiple spectrum bands include a spectrum band respectively associated with each transmission channel of the transmission channels and an empty spectrum band that is not associated with one of the transmission channels.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200081110 hereinafter Nam) in view of Wu et al. (US 20220171049 hereinafter Wu), Mani et al. (US 20230072441 hereinafter Mani) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Cottron et al. (US 20210132187 hereinafter Cottron).
Regarding claim 15, Nam teaches The device of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor circuit is to:
for potential mappings of the first transmitter, the second transmitter, and the third transmitter and the at least two non-contiguous bands to the Doppler representation (0068 “If P1 is assumed as a reflected signal associated with TX1, the index for the peak corresponding to TX2 should be I.sub.D−N.sub.C/2−N.sub.C/4. Furthermore, the index for the TX3 peak should be I.sub.D−N.sub.C/2−N.sub.C/2. If the desired index values exceed the domain interval, the remaining components for N.sub.C should be considered to compensate ambiguity”),
select, as a candidate mapping of the first transmitter, the second transmitter, and the third transmitter to the Doppler representation (0071 “it is determined whether there is a peak in the determined index, N.sub.C/4, away from TX1 (1306). If so, those two peaks can be paired for MIMO synthesis hence one complex value from TX1 and the other complex value from TX2 are consequently used for the virtual array synthesis where received channels' outputs from Tx1 and Tx2 are re-arranged for the MIMO architecture.”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Cottron teaches
compute sums of energy in respective bands of the Doppler representation in which the object is to be represented according to the potential mappings and one of the potential mappings that has a largest sum of energy among the potential mappings (0020 “Advantageously, step c) comprises the sub-steps of: [0021] calculating a signal referred to as an echo signal obtained by summing the power of the echoes of each signal band over all of the range cells;”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Cottron with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Cottron 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Cottron merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Cottron disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200081110 hereinafter Nam) in view of Wu et al. (US 20220171049 hereinafter Wu) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Posner et al. (US 9083350 hereinafter Posner).
Regarding claim 10, Nam teaches The device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Posner teaches
further including a lookup table (LUT) coupled to the respective phase shifters, the LUT to store values corresponding to the respective phase changes (para 41 “Using the equation or the LUT, the digital control circuit 750 determines how much the control signal needs to be changed from its current value in order to change the phase shift of the phase shifter 710 by the difference.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Posner with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation (Posner para 39). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Posner merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Posner disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Nam teaches The device of claim 11
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Posner teaches using a LUT for the phase shifters (para 41 “Using the equation or the LUT, the digital control circuit 750 determines how much the control signal needs to be changed from its current value in order to change the phase shift of the phase shifter 710 by the difference.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Posner with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation (Posner para 39). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Posner merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Posner disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200081110 hereinafter Nam) in view of Wu et al. (US 20220171049 hereinafter Wu), and further in view of Posner et al. (US 9083350 hereinafter Posner) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Mani et al. (US 20230072441 hereinafter Mani).
Regarding claim 18, Nam teaches The device of claim 17, further including at least one processor circuit to program the LUT with the values ([see claim 17]), the values determined (Nam 0058 “Nth chirp of the frame is transmitted with a phase shift corresponding to the Nth element of the phase modulation vector (e.g. (N.sub.C−1)PD.sub.ID).”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mani teaches
based on simulation of potential positions of at least two non-contiguous bands and the at least two non-contiguous bands not including a representation of the object (0004 “the Doppler domain spectrum to include an empty spectrum band, and perform velocity disambiguation of the object based on the Doppler domain spectrum.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mani with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Mani 0014). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Mani disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Rao et al. (US 20180011170) discloses “In accordance with described examples, a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers at least one frame of chirps transmitted by at least two transmitters and reflected off of the object. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights