DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on February 20, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Indian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Objection to the Specification
The text of 37 CFR 1.71(a) is as follows:
“(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” (Bold added).
The specification is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) in that the following listed informalities make the written description unclear. Correction is hereby required within the period for response to this office action.
Throughout the specification, there is mixed use of “Doppler” and “doppler.” All of these uses must be corrected to conform to the form, “Doppler.”
On line 7 of paragraph [0009] of the specification, “50MHz” must be corrected to “50 MHz.”
On line 8 of paragraph [0009] of the specification, “166ps” must be corrected to “166 ps.”
On line 2 of paragraph [0023] of the specification, “receivers130A-130K” must be corrected to “receivers 130A-130K.”
On line 4 of paragraph [0024] of the specification, “block like FFT engine” must be corrected to “block like an FFT engine.”
On the first line of page 6 of the specification, “detector250” must be corrected to “detector 250.”
On the first line of page 6 of the specification, “detector260” must be corrected to “detector 260.”
On line 3 of paragraph [0027] of the specification, “array210” must be corrected to “array 210.”
On line 3 of paragraph [0029] of the specification, “mixer, 225” must be corrected to “mixer 225.”
On line 5 of paragraph [0030] of the specification, “filter230” must be corrected to “filter 230.”
On line 3 of paragraph [0033] of the specification, “320and” must be corrected to “320 and.”
On line 7 of paragraph [0036] of the specification, “425on” must be corrected to “425 on.”
On line 5 of paragraph [0038] of the specification, “430and” must be corrected to “430 and.”
On line 3 of paragraph [0041] of the specification, “DEC440” must be corrected to “DEC 440.”
On line 7 of paragraph [0011] of the specification, “changing a the” must be appropriately corrected.
On lines 8-9 of paragraph [0011] of the specification, “to first frequency” must be appropriately corrected to supply the missing article.
On line 2 of paragraph [0019] of the specification, “receive reflected radar signal” must have the verb “receive” corrected to “receives” since the subject (“array”) is singular.
On line 2 of paragraph [0019] of the specification, “receive reflected radar signal” must be appropriately corrected to supply the missing article.
Objection to the Drawings
The text of 37 CFR 1.84(o) is as follows:
“(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.” (Bold added).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) because certain drawing elements lack “suitable descriptive legends” that are “necessary for understanding of the drawing,” which “suitable descriptive legends” are hereby “required by the examiner” for the following listed drawing elements: in Figure 4, drawing elements 420, 450 (all), and 460 (all).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On line 7 of independent claim 1, “DEC block” (singular) lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular form it cannot take the plural “blocks” on line 5 as antecedent.
On line 3 of dependent claim 2, “the DEC block” (singular) lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular form it cannot take the plural “blocks on line 5 of claim 1 as antecedent.
On line 1 of dependent claim 4, “the DEC block” (singular) lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular form it cannot take the plural “blocks on line 5 of claim 1 as antecedent.
On line 1 of dependent claim 5, “the DEC block” (singular) lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular form it cannot take the plural “blocks on line 5 of claim 1 as antecedent.
On line 7 of claim 1, “DEC block” is unclear in context as to whether it is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5 of the claim or whether it is intended to refer to a “block” that is different than the “blocks” on line 5. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that “block” is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5, and it should be amended to have the appropriate modifying article.
On line 1 of dependent claim 4, “the DEC block” is unclear in context as to whether it is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5 of the claim or whether it is intended to refer to a “block” that is different than the “blocks” on line 5. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that “block” is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5.
On line 1 of dependent claim 5, “the DEC block” is unclear in context as to whether it is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5 of the claim or whether it is intended to refer to a “block” that is different than the “blocks” on line 5. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that “block” is intended to refer back to “blocks” on line 5.
The term “small value” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “small value” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In each of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, the uses of “block” and “blocks” are indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the terms. In the specification, the term, “block” is used to mean a graphical block in the drawings (e.g., Specification: paragraph [26] at line 3 refers to “transmitter block 215”), but, the specification, also, uses the term, “block” in “data processing blocks/signal processing blocks” (Specification: paragraph [24] at lines 3-4). It is further noted that the specification refers to “control software” in paragraph [46]. Thus, the uses of “block” and “blocks” are unclear as to what is meant in context, including as to the antecedent of these terms in the specification. Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
On line 7 of independent claim 6, “to other receiver” is unclear in context. Perhaps, “to another receiver” is meant.
On lines 8-9 of claim 6. “the other receiver” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “another receiver.”
On line 10 of claim 6. “the other receiver” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “another receiver.”
On line 11 of claim 6, “to first frequency” is unclear in context. Perhaps, “to a first frequency” is meant.
On lines 2-3 of dependent claim 8, “the other receiver” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “another receiver.”
On line 11 of independent claim 6, it is unclear what is meant in context by “first frequency.” What is this “first frequency”? Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
On lines 10-11 of independent claim 6, the final method step of “changing the frequency of the clock generator in the other receiver from the sampling frequency to first frequency for a first time duration” is unclear as to what action is meant. Please see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Overall, independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear in that lines 7-8 (“wherein, DEC block is configured …”) seems to say that one particular DEC block synchronizes the “clock generator: of that receiver with the clock generators of all of the other receivers; however, lines 5-6 (“a plurality of delay estimation and …”) recites a plurality of DEC blocks. Does each of the DEC blocks perform the synchronization, or, does only one particular DEC block out of the plurality of DEC blocks perform the synchronization?
Each of dependent claims 2-5 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 7 and 8 are unclear, at least, in that they depend from unclear, independent claim 6.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subburaj et al (‘744) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of an offset between the first device and the second device. Since Subburaj et al (‘744) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, it is not usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Scheffel (‘273) is of general interest for the disclosure related to synchronizing clocks in a transmitter and in a receiver. Since Scheffel (‘273) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, it is not usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Each of Nayyar et al (‘095) and Nayyar et al (‘651) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of the synchronization signal. In that each of Nayyar et al (‘095) and Nayyar et al (‘651) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, neither is usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Efthivoulidis et al (‘993) is of general interest for the disclosure relating to a “distributed clock signal.” Please especially note Figure 6A. Since Efthivoulidis et al (‘993) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, it is not usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Salle et al (‘882) is of general interest for the disclosure relating to clock distribution and synchronization in a plurality of cascaded devices. Since Salle et al (‘882) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, it is not usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Jansen (‘504) is of general interest for the disclosure related to time-based corrections in a multistatic radar system. Since Jansen (‘504) is merely cited to show the general state of the prior art, it is not usable in any rejection of any of the claims either alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record.
Regarding independent claim 1, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed system as recited in claim 1, and particularly characterized by the claimed features, “a plurality of delay estimation and compensation (DEC) blocks … one receiver with every other receiver” as recited on lines 5-8 of the claim, and, taken in the overall context of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 are potentially-allowable, at least, in that they depend from potentially-allowable, independent claim 1.
As for independent claim 6, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed method as recited in independent claim 6, and particularly characterized by the claimed features, “measuring a second delay between … for a first time duration” as recited on lines 8-11 of the claim, and, taken in the overall context of independent claim 6.
Dependent claims 7-8 are potentially-allowable, at least, in that they depend from potentially-allowable, independent claim 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights