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 .
Priority
The present application claims priority to and benefit of U.S. Provisional patent application no. 63/390,927, filed July 20, 2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 19 – 38 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
The first issue is whether the essential features are claimed such as to satisfy 112 requirements.
A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,134 F.3d at 1480. Each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993.
The purpose of the invention disclosed by the specification is an invention that distinguished a signal-of-interest from noise due to micro-doppler effects (harmonics) caused by items such as a fan. See Title of Application and specification throughout. Applicant’s Fig. 2 discloses the essential steps of the invention. At step 202, the power and harmonic profile is measured and summed (not claimed) for each possible set of local reflected noise harmonics wherein the values of each harmonic set are each referred to as a harmonic weight. See Spec. Paragraph 23. At 204, the maximum weight is selected (not correctly claimed) as identifying the location of likely local reflected noisey harmonics. See Spec. Para. 24. At step 206, “it is determined whether the harmonic weight is above a minimum threshold. If so, then the algorithm proceeds to 208 where if one or more remote targets appear at the same frequency as any of the harmonics, it will become a candidate for qualification if it has a strength that is a pre-defined level above the level of the harmonic. This is determined at 210 and if a signal's strength is above the pre-defined level, the algorithm proceeds to 214 for qualification as a remote target. If the test at 210 is not above the pre-defined level, the algorithm proceeds to 212.” See Spec. Paragraph 25.
The “pre-defined level” (not claimed) and the claimed threshold are not one and the same. The claimed invention is different than the invention described by the specification, in particular Fig. 2 and associated passages. The claimed invention simply suppresses harmonics below a threshold meaning that any harmonics above the threshold could be considered a signal-of-interest SOI or target-of-interest TOI. This is contrary to the purpose of the invention which seeks to distinguish targets of interest, such as a vehicle, from noisey targets such as fans. See Spec. Para. 21 (citing “System 100 thus prevents spurious target detection signals and confusion between targets and local noise.”).
As such, the claims 19 – 38 are considered new matter and are also rejected for emitting essential elements/steps.
If a claim fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956.
Because the claimed invention is outside the scope (metes and bounds) of the invention as disclosed by the specification, in particular Fig. 2, as discussed supra, it is likely that the claims do not meet the definiteness criteria of 112(b). Regardless, the claims are already rejected as new matter based on the same reasoning and rationale applied to the same facts as provided for in the previous office action under 112(a) and as discussed herein in response to Applicant’s remarks.
The second issue is whether Harman teaches local noise source, which, in turn, turns on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “local.” The Examiner looked at every instance of the word “local” throughout the specification. The most relevant passage is Para. 19 that states “External fan 110 is an example of a local noise source that is located in the vicinity of radar system 102.” Applicant’s statements of “A fan on a remote building is not a local reflected noise signal, and is clearly a reflected wireless data signal from a remote source” appears to contradict the cited portion of paragraph 19. Applicant’s Fig. 1 also shows an “external fan” 110. As such, the Examiner believes the fan of Harman meets the scope of “local” as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation. In fact, the specification states “User interface system 108 can be used to indicate when only fan noise or other noise sources should be present, such as when a patrol vehicle is not presently in range of a remote target or directed at any moving vehicles, so as to allow the local noise sources to be detected when there are no potential remote target signals present.” See Spec. Para. 18. Based on this passage, a local noise source could be any local noise source within the detection range of the patrol car’s radar. Regardless, the engineering with respect to the signal processing is unchanged.
The Examiner would have suggested a box surrounding items 102 and 110 of Fig. 1 to clearly indicate that both items were of the same platform. Regardless, when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Examiner looks at the written disclosure as a whole, and nowhere in the specification is there an explicit requirement or definition requiring that the fan (local noise) and radar be of the same platform. In fact, Para. 18 appears to suggest the local noise could be any noise that is within a detectable range as discussed supra.
Moreover, the amended claim language of claim 28 “The method of claim 26 further comprising processing the wireless data signal to identify one or more harmonic weights from outside of a vehicle that the reflected wireless data signal is received at” appears to indicate that the harmonic noise local source is outside of the vehicle which appears to contradict Applicant’s desired interpretation of what constitutes a “local source” based on Applicant’s remarks. Assuming the “moving vehicle” is the patrol car, but if “moving vehicle” is the target vehicle, then this would beg the question as to what constitutes a remote source because local reflected noise is separately claimed. This is likely a 112-b issue.
The third issue is whether the amended claim 35 is new matter. Although the specification never expressly stated a fan (as the local noise source) is on a vehicle, the specification does state “The problem is further complicated by the fact that the fan speed tends to change due to either user input or an automatic climate control system, and the power supply can also generate various frequency noise components that can migrate into the systems components and into other wireless signals.” See Spec. Para. 11. As such, one could fairly and reasonable infer that the fan is on the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 19 – 37 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has new claims that recite “suppressing the frequency of one or more of the Harmonic components below a threshold associated with the local reflected noise signal.” see e.g., Claim 19 (similar language in claims 26 and 32).
The specification states "The total sum for each Harmonic set that is measured can be referred to as the Harmonic weight. If the Harmonic weight is above a minimum threshold, then each Harmonic can be filtered to prevent it from appearing on the user interface system108 display. Legitimate target systems can be displayed when they exceed predetermined Harmonic weight levels (see Spec. Para. 16)." The specification further states "At 206, it is determined whether the Harmonic weight is above a minimum threshold. If so, then the algorithm proceeds to 208 where if one or more remote targets appear at the same frequency as any of the Harmonics, it will become a candidate for qualification if it has a strength that is a pre-defined level above the level of the Harmonic. This is determined at 210 and if a signal's strength is above the pre-defined level, the algorithm proceeds to 214 for qualification as a remote target. If the test at 210 is not above the pre-defined level, the algorithm proceeds to 212 (see Spec. Para. 24)."
Thus, it appears as though the specification is disclosing first determining whether a Harmonic weight satisfies a first threshold (Fig. 2 step 206) is met, and, in response to determining that the first threshold is met, determining whether a target, wherein the target is at a frequency the same as one of the Harmonics of said Harmonic weight, is predefined level above the Harmonics (Fig. 2 step 210). In response to determining that the target, to be qualified, is not a pre-defined level above the Harmonics, disqualify the target and suppress the Harmonics (Fig. 2 step 212). The scope of the new claimed subject matter always suppresses Harmonics below a threshold regardless of whether the target satisfies a pre-defined level above the Harmonics at step 210 – which is not what the invention is as disclosed by the specification. As such, this is new matter and not supported by the specification.
In addition to new matter, the 112(a) rejection is warranted for omitting essential steps as discussed supra in the section titled response to Applicant’s remarks.
Dependent claims 20 – 25, 27 – 31 and 33 – 38 are rejected due to dependency of a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 27 – 31 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.
It is not clear as to whether the “moving vehicle” is the patrol car or target vehicle. Applicant may argue that the specification distinguishes between a patrol car and moving vehicle. Even so, the issue then becomes what is the difference between the remote source and moving vehicle because the claim language separately claims a remote source, local reflected noise and moving vehicle. If Applicant were to argue that the claimed “local reflected noise” relates back to the “remote source”, then there exists at the very least an antecedent issue. Also, the “moving vehicle that emits the radio frequency signal” of claim 35 would clearly be the patrol car thus negating the fact that the specification refers to both a patrol car and moving vehicle.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to state “and is performed on a moving vehicle.” Whether the method is performed on the patrol car or on a target vehicle would make said statement have two different meanings and it is not clear as to whether the moving vehicle is the detected vehicle or the vehicle with the detector (radar) as discussed supra. This is further complicated by the fact the newly added language of claim 28 “from outside of a vehicle that the reflected wireless data signal is received at” implies that the noise is not local based on Applicant’s own remarks as discussed supra. See Applicant’s Remarks Pgs. 6 – 7.
As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully determined thus the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 – 22, 26 – 28 and 32 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harman (US 20130021194 A1).
NOTE: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner believes that weights as claimed can be interpreted as peaks. Although, the specification states that “The total sum for each Harmonic set that is measured can be referred to as the Harmonic weight (see Spec. Para. 16, emphasis added)”, the specification does not require that the weights must be referred as such. Nonetheless, Harman does disclose coherent FFT integration Fig. 5 step 410, which would meet the scope of a total sum.
As to claims 19, 26 and 32, Harman discloses a method for processing data, comprising:
receiving a reflected wireless data signal from a remote source at an antenna and generating an electrical signal (Fig. 1 receive antenna 252 and ADC’s 260 – 261);
processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components (Fig. 5 steps 408 – 410 Fourier transforms);
identifying a frequency of a local reflected noise signal (Fig. 5 step 418 “identify detections”);
determining whether the frequency of the local reflected noise signal corresponds to a frequency of one or more of the Harmonic components (Para. 43 “Returns from targets such as fans, that may be present e.g. in air-conditioning units on buildings may be easily filtered or disregarded due to their unchanging position.”) and
suppressing the frequency of one or more of the Harmonic components below a threshold associated with the local reflected noise signal (Para 42 “The signature may be analysed to detect the speed of rotation of the rotating feature, and to exclude from detection any results from targets having rotational speeds below predetermined limits.”).
As to claim 20, Harman discloses the method of claim 19 wherein processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components comprises processing a frame of the electrical data signal (Para. 56 “the samples gathered over each frequency sweep period are transformed 408 to the frequency domain.” See also Para. 57 “coherent integration over the dwell period.”).
As to claim 21, Harman discloses the method of claim 19 further comprising processing the reflected wireless data signal to generate a frame of frequency data (Paras. 56 and 57).
As to claim 22, Harman dislcoses the method of claim 19 further comprising processing the electrical signal to identify one or more Harmonic weights (Para. 60 “Any detections that remain are analysed to see whether they are likely to be frequency Harmonics of slower objects such as cars, or caused by helicopter blade flash, or amplitude modulated signals caused by, for example fans or vibrating structures.” Detection, flashing and modulation refer to peaks which meet the scope of weights, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. A detection is a peak that crosses a signal-to-noise threshold. Harman also discloses integration at Paras. 57 – 58 and Fig. 5 step 410 as well as discrimination at Fig. 4 step 414.).
As to claim 27, Harman discloses the method of claim 26 wherein converting the wireless data signal into a plurality of frequency bins comprises converting a frame of the wireless data signal into the plurality of frequency bins (Para. 56 FFT) and is performed on vehicle (as best understood, Harman teaches signal processing on a moving vehicle per Para. 60 “helicopter blade flash”).
As to claim 28, Harman discloses the method of claim 26 further comprising processing the wireless data signal to identify one or more Harmonic weights (Para. 60 “Any detections that remain are analysed to see whether they are likely to be frequency Harmonics of slower objects such as cars, or caused by helicopter blade flash, or amplitude modulated signals caused by, for example fans or vibrating structures.” Detection, flashing and modulation refer to peaks which meet the scope of weights, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. A detection is a peak that crosses a signal-to-noise threshold regardless whether its signal-of-interest SOI or an unwanted signal such as the flashing and amplitude signals. Harman does disclose integration and a discriminator. See Harman steps 410 and 414.) from outside of a vehicle that the reflected wireless data signal is received at (Id. the blades are outside of the helicopter).
As to claim 33, Harman discloses the method of claim 32 further comprising processing a frame of the electrical data signal into a plurality of frequency components (Para. 56 FFT).
As to claim 34, Harman discloses the method of claim 32 further comprising processing a frame of the electrical data signal to identify one or more Harmonic weights of associated with the noise in the frequency bins (Para. 60 “Any detections that remain are analysed to see whether they are likely to be frequency Harmonics of slower objects such as cars, or caused by helicopter blade flash, or amplitude modulated signals caused by, for example fans or vibrating structures.” Detection, flashing and modulation refer to peaks which meet the scope of weights, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. A detection is a peak that crosses a signal-to-noise threshold regardless whether its signal-of-interest SOI or an unwanted signal such as the flashing and amplitude signals; e.g., a fan. Harman does disclose integration and a discriminator. See Harman steps 410 and 414.).
Claims 1, 26, 32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harman (US 20190129006 A1).
As to claims 1, 26 and 32, Harman ‘006 discloses a method for processing data, comprising:
receiving a reflected wireless data signal from a remote source at an antenna and generating an electrical signal (Fig. 2 step 20);
processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components (Para. 52 “characteristics indicative of a rotating object”);
identifying a frequency of a local reflected noise signal (Para. 81 and Fig. 3);
determining whether the frequency of the local reflected noise signal corresponds to a frequency of one or more of the Harmonic components (Para. 81 and Fig. 3) and
suppressing the frequency of one or more of the Harmonic components below a threshold associated with the local reflected noise signal (Para. 74 “The beamformed data is filtered at step 22, using a first Doppler filter to remove signals that are moving either too slowly or too quickly as compared to velocities of targets of interest, and analyses said filtered data to search for signals that are greater, by a predetermined margin, than the underlying noise.”).
As to claim 38, Harman teaches the method of claim 19 wherein the local reflected noise is received from an attached structure (Fig. 1a Fans shown as part of the device comprising transmit/receive TR module and RF and Waveform generators.).
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.
Claims 23 – 24, 29 – 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harman in view of Ichinose (US 20180356507 A1).
As to claims 23 and 29, Harman does not teach the method of claim 19 wherein processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components comprises processing a frame of the electrical data signal and processing the frame of the electrical data signal to identify a maximum Harmonic weight.
In the same field of endeavor, Ichinose teaches determining whether a greatest intensity peak of a frequency band of a frequency spectrum has satisfied a peak condition in order to qualify or detect a target. See Ichinose Paras. 167 – 170 Fig. 22 S13 – S14.
In view of the teachings of Ichinose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply steps S13 and S14 as taught by Ichinose in order to detect and qualify a target thereby ensuring the target is a target of interest instead of local noise due to Harmonics cause by vibrations, flashing, spinning, etc., thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 24, 30 and 36, Harman does not teach the method of claim 19 wherein processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components comprises processing a frame of the electrical data signal and processing the frame of the electrical data signal to identify whether a maximum Harmonic weight has exceeded a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Ichinose teaches determining whether a greatest intensity peak of a frequency band of a frequency spectrum has satisfied a peak condition in order to qualify or detect a target. See Ichinose Paras. 167 – 170 Fig. 22 S13 – S14.
In view of the teachings of Ichinose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply steps S13 and S14 as taught by Ichinose in order to detect and qualify a target thereby ensuring the target is a target of interest instead of local noise due to Harmonics cause by vibrations, flashing, spinning, etc., thereby improving accuracy.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harman ‘006 as Banvait (US 20170248955 A1).
As to claim 35, Harman ‘006 discloses the method of claim 32 further comprising processing a frame of the electrical data signal to identify a maximum Harmonic weight associated with fan noise (Para. 82 “FIG. 3b shows a time domain representation typical of that often seen from a helicopter type rotor. The x-axis is time and the y-axis again is arbitrary received power. The representation includes of a regular series of sharp peaks. Each peak occurs when the blade of a helicopter or drone rotates so as to have its axis perpendicular to the direction of view—i.e. it is being seen face-on. At that point, a comparatively large signal is reflected back, causing the peak shown.” See also Fig. 3a item 31. Because fans have blades that rotate, the helicopter blades meet the scope of fans. Harman does disclose integration and a discriminator. See Harman steps 410 and 414.).
Harmon does not discloses harmonic weights.
In the same field of endeavor, Ichinose teaches determining whether a greatest intensity peak of a frequency band of a frequency spectrum has satisfied a peak condition in order to qualify or detect a target. See Ichinose Paras. 167 – 170 Fig. 22 S13 – S14.
In view of the teachings of Ichinose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply steps S13 and S14 as taught by Ichinose in order to detect and qualify a target thereby ensuring the target is a target of interest instead of local noise due to Harmonics cause by vibrations, flashing, spinning, etc., thereby improving accuracy.
Harman in view of Ichinose does not disclose the fan noise and radar being part of the same vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Banvait teaches “This information may be used by the noise cancellation modules 400a-400d to remove noise caused by the engine and fan and vehicle wind noise (Para. 43).”
Currently there is a demand for automotive radars. As indicated by Harman and Banvait, there exist a need to filter noisey harmonics due to micro-doppler effects, e.g., vibrations and rotations. As such, it would be predictably obvious to combine Harman’s radar with a vehicle having a fan in order to provide comfort to passengers (air conditioning) while mitigating the effects of noisey harmonics caused by the fan to improve the radar detection thus improving safety.
Claims 25, 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harman in view Pijlman (US 20240012128 A1) having priority of Feb. 16, 2021.
As to claims 25, 31 and 37, Harman does not teach the method of claim 19 wherein processing the electrical signal to generate Harmonic components comprises processing a frame of the electrical data signal and processing the frame of the electrical data signal to identify whether a maximum Harmonic weight (Fig. 4 step 410 integration)
has exceeded a threshold (Para. 60 “This removes detections that are outside the upper and lower limits of the Doppler frequency for the targets of interest.” Fig. 4 steps 412 – 414)
for a predetermined period of time (Not taught).
In the same field of endeavor, Pijlman teaches “In this context, the term substantially constant refers to the excitation being present at the same frequency or frequency range with an amplitude that does not fall below a noise threshold during the predetermined time period (Para. 17).”
In view of the teachings of Pijilman, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to require a duration threshold in order to qualify the target in order to prevent false alarms due to radio frequency interference thereby improving accuracy.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harman in view of Alberding (US 20080001841 A1).
As to claim 38, Harman does not teach the method of claim 19 wherein the local reflected noise is received from an attached structure.
Although Harman teaches harmonics due to blade flashing and fans, Para. 60, Harman does not state the fan is attached to the radar.
In the same field of endeavor, Alberding teaches “The heat-radiating elements and the fan are a part of an air-cooling system that is used to remove the heat generated by radar electronics 110 (Para. 28).”
In view of the teachings of Alberding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have an attached fan in order to cool the system thereby extending the life of the system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights