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 3-27-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-40 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.
As per claims 21 and 31, the motion condition makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is being monitored for motion. The wireless communication device? The radar itself? It is further unclear how a “wireless communication device” can perform SAR sensing. Further clarification on the relationship between the communication device and the SAR radar is required.
As per claims 26 and 36, the phrase “relative movement between the object and..device” makes the claim indefinite. If the device is stationary but the object is moving, then relative movement will exist but the device is still incapable of SAR imaging as the SAR antenna needs to be moving. Further clarification is required.
As per claims 30 and 40, it is unclear how non-SAR sensing data is provided if the system is determined to be moving and therefore provides SAR information as per claim 1. Further clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurila, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0064318, published February 28, 2019 in view of Hamet, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0214719, filed August 18, 2022.
As per claims 21 and 31, Laurila discloses A method of operation by a wireless communication device, the method comprising: receiving a request for radar sensing; responsive to the request, evaluating whether one or more conditions necessary for performing Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) sensing are satisfied, the one or more conditions including at least a motion condition; responsive to the one or more conditions being satisfied, performing SAR sensing with respect to a physical environment containing the wireless communication device and correspondingly obtaining SAR sensing data; and providing the SAR sensing data responsive to the request (Laurila, ¶97).
Laurila fails to explicitly disclose evaluation of a condition before operation including movement.
As the information is from a SAR radar, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to check movement in order to ensure proper operation of the radar, which required movement to simulate a larger antenna.
Hamet teaches evaluation of a condition (¶36, can the command be executed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to ensure the radar can handle the request in order to gain the obvious benefit of providing the data as discussed by Laurila (¶82).
As per claims 22 and 32, Laurila as modified by Hamet discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein an Operating System (OS) function of the wireless communication device performs the method, wherein receiving the request comprises the OS function receiving the request from an application executing in an OS of the wireless communication device, via an Application Program Interface (API) provided by the OS, and wherein providing the SAR sensing data comprises outputting the SAR sensing data to the application via the API (Laurila, ¶97 where running the OS to respond and process is normal computer operation).
As per claims 23 and 33, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein, responsive to any one of the one or more conditions not being satisfied, the method includes performing non-SAR sensing in response to the request, and correspondingly obtaining non-SAR sensing data and providing the non-SAR sensing data responsive to the request.
SAR imaging requires antenna movement however Laurila discloses providing reduced data when the requesting device cannot handle the full data stream (¶71-74).
Snapshot imaging is well-known in SAR radars and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide non-SAR data, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Laurila. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what data to provide when SAR data is unavailable due to a lack of motion.
As per claims 24 and 34, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein, responsive to any one of the one or more conditions not being satisfied, the method includes sending an indication towards a requestor that originated the request (Hamet, ¶36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to let the client know the request has not been met in order to gain the obvious benefit of notifying the one who requested the data.
As per claims 25 and 35, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein, in addition to the motion condition, the one or more conditions include a proximate object condition, and wherein the method comprises determining whether the proximate object condition is satisfied based on at least one of: acquiring one or more images from a camera of the wireless communication device and determining whether the one or more images indicate the presence of a proximate object; or acquiring non-SAR sensing data and determining whether the non-SAR sensing data indicates the presence of a proximate object (Laurila, ¶81 where location requirements are checked).
As per claims 26 and 36, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein determining whether the motion condition is satisfied comprises acquiring at successive times, non-SAR sensing data or camera images and determining whether a difference in estimated positions of a proximate object detected over the successively acquired non-SAR sensing data or camera images indicate relative movement between the object and the wireless communication device (Laurila, ¶8 where a satellite knows its own motion in order to properly operate the SAR).
As per claims 28 and 38, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 26, further comprising, in a case where the successively acquired non-SAR sensing data or camera images indicate relative movement and where an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) of the wireless communication device indicates translational or rotational motion of the wireless communication device, the method further comprises performing the SAR sensing as a SAR acquisition (Laurila, ¶91).
As per claims 29, 30, 39 and 40, as best understood by examiner, Laurila as modified by Hamet further discloses the method according to claim 21 where lower resolution data is provided based on the request (Laurila, ¶71-74).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide lower resolution as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Laurila. The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what data to request and what data to send.
Claim(s) 27 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurila and Hamet as applied to claims 26 and 36 above, and further in view of Al-Ani, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0152445, published May 18, 2023.
As per claims 27 and 37, Laurila as modified by Hamet discloses the device of claim 26 but fails to disclose providing ISAR data.
Al-Ani teaches ISAR data (¶13).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide ISAR as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Laurila. The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what data to request and what data to send.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
