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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim terms “means for transmitting”, “means for determining” and “means for receiving” in claims 17-20 are interpreted as transceiver, receiver [0023], radar antenna [0083], processor and memory containing instructions [0085-0087].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims (1, 9, 17), (3-5, 11-13, 19-20) and (7, 15) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-21, 24, and 26-30 of U.S. Patent No.12298381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are broader than the patent’s claims.
The following is comparison of the limitations of the current application with the Patent.
For claim 1:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No.12298381
transmitting, during a first pulse interval, a first pulse having a first duration, wherein the first pulse interval comprises the transmission of the first pulse followed by a first reception window; and
Claim 1: transmitting, by a device, a first signal for a first duration corresponding to a first transmission window; receiving, by the device, a first reflection of the first signal from a first object during a second duration following the first duration, wherein the second duration defines a first detection range for the first signal and corresponds to a first reception window;
transmitting, during a second pulse interval following the first pulse interval, a second pulse having a second duration, wherein the second pulse interval comprises the transmission of the second pulse followed by a second reception window; and
Claim 1: transmitting, by the device, a second signal for a third duration, wherein: the third duration is longer than the first duration, follows the second duration, and corresponds to a second transmission window, and
receiving, by the device, a second reflection of the second signal from a second object during a fourth duration following the third duration, wherein the fourth duration defines a second detection range for the second signal different from the first detection range and corresponds to a second reception window,
the second duration is longer than the first duration, a duration of the second reception window is longer than a duration of the first reception window, and
Claim 1: the third duration is longer than the first duration, follows the second duration, and corresponds to a second transmission window
the second duration is determined based at least in part on a transmission range determined from a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first pulse.
Claim 1: the third duration is determined based at least in part on a transmission range determined from a signal to noise ratio of the first signal;
For claim 3:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No.12298381
wherein the first duration is determined based at least in part on a minimum distance from the user equipment that an object is detectable by the user equipment.
Claim 3: wherein the first duration is determined based at least in part on a minimum distance from the device that an object is detectable.
For Claim 4:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No.12298381
further comprising, prior to transmitting the second pulse, determining a time for transmitting the second pulse based at least in part on a length of the first duration.
Claim 9: further comprising, prior to transmitting the second signal by the device, determining a time for transmitting the second signal based at least in part on a length of the first duration.
For Claim 5:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No.12298381
receiving a reflection of the first pulse during the first reception window, wherein the reflection of the first pulse is from an object within a detection range from the user equipment for the first pulse, and the detection range is defined by a duration of the first reception window.
Claim 1: receiving, by the device, a first reflection of the first signal from a first object during a second duration following the first duration, wherein the second duration defines a first detection range for the first signal and corresponds to a first reception window;
Claim 7:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No.12298381
wherein the user equipment comprises a half- duplex device
Claim 7: wherein the device comprises a half-duplex device.
Claims (2, 10, 18), (6, 14) and (8, 16) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12298381 in view of US 20190170868 A1, D0 US 20130235366 A1 and US 20180348353 A1. Please, see the 103 rejections bellow.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20190170868 A1 in view of D0 US 20130235366 A1.
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches
1, 9, 17. A method for radar detection performed by a user equipment in a cellular network, the method comprising:
transmitting, during a first pulse interval(fig. 1), a first pulse having a first duration, wherein the first pulse interval comprises the transmission of the first pulse followed by a first reception window; and (short pulse +Sample time short )
transmitting, during a second pulse interval(fig. 1) following the first pulse interval, a second pulse(medium pulse + sample time medium) having a second duration(medium pulse + sample time medium), wherein the second pulse interval comprises the transmission of the second pulse followed by a second reception window; (medium pulse + sample time medium in fig. 1) and
wherein:
the second duration is longer than the first duration, a duration of the second reception window is longer than a duration of the first reception window, and (fig. 1)
but does not teach while D0 teaches
the second duration is determined based at least in part on a transmission range determined from a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first pulse. [0058][0013-0014]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D0 in order reliably identify long distance objects.
Regarding claim 2 D1 teaches
2, 10, 18. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, during a third pulse interval following the second pulse interval, a third pulse having a third duration,(fig. 1 long pulse) wherein the third pulse interval comprises the transmission of the third pulse followed by a third reception window;(fig. 1) and wherein: the third duration is longer than the second duration, a duration of the third reception window is longer than a duration of the second reception window(fig. 1 ),
But does not teach while D0 teaches
the third duration is determined based at least in part on a transmission range determined from a SNR of the second pulse. [0058][0013-0014]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D0 in order reliably identify long distance objects.
3, 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the first duration is determined based at least in part on a minimum distance from the user equipment that an object is detectable by the user equipment. (D1: [0113]/[0026])
4, 12, 19. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to transmitting the second pulse, determining a time for transmitting the second pulse based at least in part on a length of the first duration. (D1: fig. 1 / or fig. 7 the second pulse transmitted right after the first duration)
5, 13, 20. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a reflection of the first pulse during the first reception window, wherein the reflection of the first pulse is from an object within a detection range from the user equipment for the first pulse, and the detection range is defined by a duration of the first reception window. (D1: fig. 1 implicit if the target is at short range the reflection will be received at short time period)
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D0 further in view of D2 US 20180348353 A1.
Regarding claim 6 D1 and D0 do no teach
6, 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment comprises a full- duplex device operating in a half-duplex mode for all of the first pulse interval and all of the second pulse interval.
7, 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment comprises a half- duplex device.
8, 16. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first pulse comprises transmitting the first pulse with a wireless communication interface of the user equipment.
D2 teaches
radar operating in Full duplex mode or Half Duplex mode[0061]
the user equipment comprises a full- duplex device operating in a half-duplex mode for all of the first pulse interval and all of the second pulse interval. [0061]
8, 16. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first pulse comprises transmitting the first pulse with a wireless communication interface of the user equipment. [0061]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the
filing to modify invention by D1 with full-duplex device by D2 in
order to enable close-range radar sensing [0061] using pda or cell phone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENA SERAYDARYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 7:30-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact 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.
/HELENA H SERAYDARYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
