DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 02/04/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
There are no copies of KR 20200026599 and DE 102018123383 as cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 15, and 20, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written descriptive support for the “phase compensation” encompassed by the claim language. Applicant has not adequately described the claimed invention because the specification fails to provide adequate written descriptive support for such “phase compensation” and how and in what manner such “phase compensation” is determined. In the specification, the claimed “phase compensation” was generally described without set forth the process and/or the condition(s) of for the system to determine the “phase compensation” such that practice of the invention could be made by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. In addition, if such “phase compensation” is implied to the “phase compensation factor” described in the disclosure, Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to reflect such “phase compensation factor”. However, similar to the claimed “phase compensation”, such “phase compensation factor” was also not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
A written descriptive support for a claimed invention is adequate where the disclosure specifies “relevant identifying characteristics,” such as “complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. GenProbe Inc., , 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, that is not a case here. “[P]roof of a reduction to practice, absent an adequate description in the specification of what is reduced to practice, does not serve to describe or identify the invention for purposes of [the written description requirement].” Enzo, 323 F.3d at 969.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-13 and 15-20 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 7, the preamble language of “A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing instructions configurable to cause, when executed by one or more processors, a radar system that includes the one or more processors to:…” as claimed is vague and not readily understood. It is unclear of whether Applicant is claiming a product (i.e. a non-transitory processor-readable medium) or a system (i.e. a radar system) in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it recites the limitation “the non-phase-corrected first or second set of velocity data” in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it recites the limitation “the non-phase-corrected first or second set of velocity data” in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, it recites the limitation “the non-phase-corrected first or second set of velocity data” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it recites the limitation “the non-phase-corrected first or second set of velocity data” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. The claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Claim 14 is allowed.
Claims 15-19 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if overcome 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,740,345 discloses a method for a radar system includes transmitting, by a transmit channel of the radar system, a frame comprising first, second, and third chirps. Each chirp has a chirp start frequency, and the chirp start frequency of the transmitted chirps is dithered. The method also includes receiving, by a receive channel of the radar system, a frame of reflected chirps based on the transmitted frame, and generating a digital intermediate frequency (IF) signal.
US 12,019,142 discloses a radar system includes first, second, and third transmitter branches. The first transmitter branch transmits a first frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal having a first set of chirps having a first phase setting such that phase values of consecutive chirps differ by a first phase difference. The second transmitter branch transmits a second FMCW signal having a second set of chirps having a second phase setting such that phase values of consecutive chirps differ by a second phase difference. The third transmitter branch transmits a third FMCW signal having a third set of chirps having a third phase setting such that phase values of consecutive chirps differ by a third phase difference. The first phase difference, the second phase difference, and the third phase difference are different phase differences. The first phase difference, the second phase difference, and the third phase difference are asymmetrically distributed relative to each other.
US 11,391,815 discloses methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to compensate radar system calibration. A radio-frequency (RF) subsystem having a transmit channel, a receive channel, and a loopback path comprising at least a portion of the transmit channel and at least a portion of the receive channel, a loopback measurer to measure a first loopback response of the RF subsystem for a first calibration configuration of the RF subsystem, and to measure a second loopback response of the RF subsystem for a second calibration configuration of the RF subsystem, and a compensator to adjust at least one of a transmit programmable shifter or a digital front end based on a difference between the first loopback response and the second loopback response to compensate for a loopback response change when the RF subsystem is changed from the first calibration configuration to the second calibration configuration.
US 10,921,436 discloses an apparatus for resolving velocity ambiguity in a MIMO RADAR includes a plurality of transmit channels and a virtual channel. Each transmit channel includes a transmit antenna configured to transmit a plurality of chirps. Each chirp includes a frequency ramp of a transmit frequency of the respective transmit channel. Each transmit channel is orthogonal to another transmit channel and to a virtual transmit channel. A waveform generator is configured to generate a local oscillator (LO) signal for each transmit channel. A frequency offset circuit is configured to modify the LO signal of each transmit channel with a respective frequency offset to generate the respective transmit frequency.
US 9,952,313 discloses a Radar Calibration Processor (“RCP”) for calibrating the phase of a stepped-chirp signal utilized by a synthetic aperture radar (“SAR”). The RCP includes a periodic phase error (“PPE”) calibrator, first non-periodic phase error (“NPPE”) calibrator in signal communication with the PPE calibrator, and a second NPPE calibrator in signal communication with the first NPPE calibrator.
US 9,541,638 discloses a method for detecting an object using radar system having M transmit antennas, N receive antennas, and a processor, including: receiving, by the processor, N×M digital signals, wherein the N receivers receive M received signals corresponding to M sequences of encoded transmitted signals resulting in N×M digital signals; processing the N×M digital signals to produce N×M first range/relative velocity matrices; applying a phase compensation to N×(M−1) first range/relative velocity matrices to compensate for a difference in range between the N×(M−1) first range/relative velocity matrices and the Mth range/velocity matrix; decoding the M phase compensated range/relative velocity matrices for the N receivers using an inverse of the transmit encoding to produce M decoded phase range/relative velocity matrices for the N receivers; detecting objects using the M range/relative velocity matrices for the N receivers to produce a detection vector.
US 10,094,920 discloses a radar apparatus for estimating a range of an obstacle. The radar apparatus includes a local oscillator that generates a first ramp segment and a second ramp segment. The first ramp segment and the second ramp segment each includes a start frequency, a first frequency and a second frequency. The first frequency of the second ramp segment is equal to or greater than the second frequency of the first ramp segment when a slope of the first ramp segment and a slope of the second ramp segment are equal and positive. The first frequency of the second ramp segment is equal to or less than the second frequency of the first ramp segment when the slope of the first ramp segment and the slope of the second ramp segment are equal and negative.
EP 3,865,900 discloses a method for determining velocity of an object. The method includes in response to two interleaved chirp sequences being sent towards the object, processing responsive chirps of each of the two interleaved chirp sequences independently from one another to produce respective Doppler-spectrum data sets, and calculating the velocity of the object based on the respective Doppler-spectrum data sets. Each of the interleaved chirp sequences being characterized by a common time spacing between respective chirps of the respective chirp sequence, and each chirp of one of the chirp sequences being offset by an amount of time that is different than the common time spacing.
EP 3,143,426 discloses radar systems and methods, and, more particularly, to radar systems and methods using a modified radar signal and signal processing approach to determine relative velocity (Doppler), range and bearing of one or more objects, including simultaneous determination of relative velocity, range and bearing of multiple objects.
CN 107923972 discloses a radar device comprises a transmitting unit, the emitting unit in response to a reference clock generates a first signal and feedback clock. The first signal to generate a second signal by one or more barrier scattering. receiving unit receives a second signal and generate N samples corresponding to the second signal wherein N is an integer. The adjusting circuit is coupled to the transmitting unit and receiving unit. The circuit receiving N samples corresponding to the second signal, and using the feedback clock and error between the reference clock generating N new samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights