UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/455,948
`
`03/10/2017
`
`TAKAAKI KISHIGAMI
`
`731156.595
`
`3343
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MALLEY SR" DANIEL P
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3648
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/29/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/455,948
`Examiner
`Daniel P Malley Sr.
`
`Applicant(s)
`KISHIGAMI, TAKAAKI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3648
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/10/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 3/10/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`c)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datew.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190423
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`With regard to claims 1 and 8, the metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`“ .
`
`.
`
`. allocates (allocating) each of a plurality of transmitting antennas an even number of
`
`times in sequence in a determined order to every one or more radar signal transmission
`
`periods Within a determined period...” are confusing because the language lacks clarity.
`
`E.g., it is not clear how the term “in sequence” differs from the term “in a determined
`
`order...” In short, the language of the limitation is convoluted, confusing and lacks
`
`clarity.
`
`The metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`transmits (transmitting) each of the
`
`plurality of radar signals every one of the radar signal transmission periods through the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 3
`
`allocated transmitting antenna...” are also confusing because the language is
`
`convoluted, confusing and lacks clarity.
`
`The metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`wherein one or more pairs of an even
`
`number of transmission start timings at which the allocated transmitting antennas
`
`transmit each of the plurality of radar signals within the determined period have identical
`
`time differences from a reference timing within the determined period. .
`
`are confusing
`
`because the language is convoluted, confusing and lacks clarity.
`
`With regard to claim 2, the metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`the switching
`
`controller switches among the plurality of transmitting antennas every even number of
`
`the radar signal transmission periods, the plurality being an even number. .
`
`. ” is
`
`confusing and unclear due to the repetitive nature of the language. Again, the language
`
`is convoluted, confusing and lacks clarity.
`
`With regard to claim 3, the metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`the switching
`
`controller switches among the plurality of transmitting antenna every 4 or 8 multiples of
`
`the radar signal transmission periods...” is confusing because the exact nature of the
`
`switching procedure is unclear. As before, the language is convoluted, confusing and
`
`lacks clarity.
`
`With regard to claim 4, the metes and bounds of the limitation
`
`a first average
`
`of time differences between each of a plurality of transmission start timings from a first
`
`transmitting antenna among the plurality of transmitting antennas and the reference
`
`timing and a second average of time differences between each of a plurality of
`
`transmission start timings from a second transmitting antenna among the plurality of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 4
`
`transmitting antennas and the reference timing are equal. .
`
`. ” Once again, the language
`
`is convoluted, confusing and lacks clarity.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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 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.
`
`5.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 5
`
`7.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 4 — 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
`
`US 20140085128 (Kishigami) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious
`
`over Kishigami in view of US 20170248692 (Zivkovic).
`
`With regard to claims 1 and 8, as best understood, Kishigami discloses a
`
`radar apparatus and method (See, e.g., Kishigami at Figs. 1-21 and the related text,
`
`wherein a radar apparatus and radar method are shown and described), comprising:
`
`Kishigami discloses a radar signal generator, which in operation, outputs a
`
`plurality of radar signals (See, e.g., Kishigami at Figs. 1, 2, 9 13, 14, 17, 18 and the
`
`related text including at [0038-40, 49 — 80, 144, 158-166,171-177,+], wherein a radar
`
`signal generator is shown and described);
`
`Kishigami discloses a switching controller, which in operation, allocates each of a
`
`plurality of transmitting antennas an even number of times in sequence in a determined
`
`order to every one or more radar signal transmission periods within a determined period
`
`(See, e.g., Kishigami at Figs. 1 — 6, 8 — 14, 17-19 and the related text, including [0044,
`
`49- 78, 109-110, 120-121, 139-145, 155 — 167, 170-180, 201+], wherein a transmission
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 6
`
`(switching) controller provides a trigger signal to each of a plurality of transmission
`
`antennas an even number of times in sequence in a predetermined order within a
`
`predetermined period, see e.g., at Fig. 10, wherein the sequence appears to be TX1,
`
`TX2, TX2, TX1; and at Fig. 19, wherein the sequence appears to be TX1, TX2, TX1,
`
`TX2; in each case, TX antenna 1 and TX antenna 2 are transmitted an even number of
`
`times during the period shown at Figs. 10 and 19); alternative, if the intention of the
`
`limitation (see 112(b) above) is to specify allocating each of a plurality of transmitting
`
`antennas an even number of times in sequence in a determined order during each
`
`transmission period, then Kishigami does not appear to disclose the claimed subject
`
`matter; Zivkovic, however, teaches allocating each of a plurality of transmitting antennas
`
`are an even number of times in sequence in a determined order during each
`
`transmission period (See, e.g., Zivkovic at Figs. 1 — 5B and the related text, including
`
`Figs. 1 — 4B and the related text, wherein a plurality of transmission antennas are
`
`shown and described; at Figs. 4A-4B and [0006, 49 — 55], wherein Fig. 4A shows a first
`
`antenna (shown as a square) transmitting six (an even number) times in sequence,
`
`followed by the second antenna (shown as a circle) transmitting six (an even number)
`
`times in sequence, followed by the third antenna (shown as a triangle) transmitting six
`
`(an even number) times in sequence; at Fig. 48, each antenna transmits twice in
`
`sequence (two square, two circles, two triangles, and so on and so forth); and
`
`Kishigami discloses a radio transmitter, which in operation, transmits each of the
`
`plurality of radar signals every one of the radar signal transmission periods through the
`
`allocated transmitting antenna (See, e.g., Kishigami at Figs. 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18+ and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 7
`
`the related text, wherein each transmission antenna is shown and described as being
`
`coupled to a RF transmission section);
`
`Kishigami discloses [that] one or more pairs of an even number of transmission
`
`start timings at which the allocated transmitting antennas transmit each of the plurality
`
`of radar signals within the determined period have identical time differences from a
`
`reference timing within the determined period (See, e.g., Kishigami at Fig. 10, wherein
`
`the sequence appears to be TX1, TX2, TX2, TX1; and at Fig. 19, wherein the sequence
`
`appears to be TX1, TX2, TX1, TX2; wherein TX antenna 1
`
`is referenced to a trigger
`
`signal TH, and the separation between instances of TH appears to be Tw1; wherein the
`
`TX antenna 2 is referenced to a trigger signal Tr2, and the separation between
`
`instances of Tr2 appears to be Tw2; it appears that Tw1 and Tw2 have to be equal for
`
`the first and second antennas to remain in synchronization (i.e., period Tw2 would
`
`advance or recede relative to Tw1, which does not appear to be the case)).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the effective filing date to provide the teachings of Zivkovic to the apparatus and
`
`method of Kishigami for the purpose of providing a radar system comprising a plurality
`
`of transmitters for transmitting a radar signal and a transmit controller for controlling a
`
`sequence of combinations of transmitters used to transmit during a time period T. See
`
`Zivkovic at [003-06, 49].
`
`With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Kishigami discloses [that] in a
`
`case where the radar signals are generated using complementary codes, the switching
`
`controller switches among the plurality of transmitting antennas every even number of
`
`the radar signal transmission periods, the plurality being an even number (See, e.g.,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 8
`
`Kishigami at Fig. 10, wherein it appears that wherein the sequence appears to be TX1,
`
`TX2, TX2, TX1, and at [0136], wherein it appears that complementary codes (an,p1;
`
`an,p2) are employed).
`
`With regard to claim 4, as best understood, Kishigami discloses [that] a first
`
`average of time differences between each of a plurality of transmission start timings
`
`from a first transmitting antenna among the plurality of transmitting antennas and the
`
`reference timing and a second average of time differences between each of a plurality
`
`of transmission start timings from a second transmitting antenna among the plurality of
`
`transmitting antennas and the reference timing are equal number (See, e.g., Kishigami
`
`at Figs. 10 and 19, wherein the reference timing for antenna 1
`
`is the trigger signal TH
`
`and instances of TH appears to be separated by a constant period Tw1, and the
`
`reference timing for antenna 2 is the trigger signal Tr2, and instances of Tr2 appears to
`
`be separated by a constant period Tw2, which appears to be identical to Tw1 since the
`
`two periods appear to be in synchronization; and thus the average of Tw1 and the
`
`average of Tw2 must be equal as well).
`
`With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Kishigami discloses [that] the
`
`switching controller switches among the plurality of transmitting antennas from a first
`
`transmitting antenna to an Nt-th transmitting antenna in order and then from the Nt-th
`
`transmitting antennas to the first transmitting antenna in reverse order every one of the
`
`radar signal transmission periods, Nt being an integer of not less than 2 (See, e.g.,
`
`Kishigami at Fig. 10, wherein the sequence appears to be TX1, TX2, TX2, TX1 (in
`
`order, then reverse order); and wherein Nt is equal to two).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 9
`
`With regard to claim 6, as best understood, Kishigami discloses [that] the
`
`switching controller switches among the plurality of transmitting antennas from a first
`
`transmitting antenna to an Nt-th transmitting antenna in order and then from the Ntth
`
`transmitting antennas to the first transmitting antenna in reverse order every Nb of the
`
`radar signal transmission periods, Nt being an integer of not less than 2, and Nb being
`
`an integer of not less than 2 (See, e.g., Kishigami at Fig. 10, wherein the sequence
`
`appears to be TX1, TX2, TX2, TX1; and wherein the number of antennas (Nt) is equal
`
`to two; and wherein it appears that the sequence proceeds from a first transmitting
`
`antenna to a second transmitting antenna in order, and then from the second
`
`transmitting antennas to the first transmitting antenna in reverse order every second
`
`radar signal transmission period).
`
`With regard to claim 7, as best understood, Kishigami discloses [that] the
`
`switching controller repeats an operation of switching among the plurality of transmitting
`
`antennas from an Nt-th transmitting antenna to a first transmitting antenna in order and
`
`then from the first transmitting antennas to the Nt-th transmitting antenna in reverse
`
`order every one of the radar signal transmission periods, the operation being repeated a
`
`plurality of times within the determined period, Nt being an integer of not less than 2
`
`(See, e.g., Kishigami at Fig. 10, wherein the sequence appears to be TX1, TX2, TX2,
`
`TX1; and wherein the number of antennas (Nt) is equal to two; and wherein it appears
`
`that the sequence proceeds from a first transmitting antenna to a second transmitting
`
`antenna in order, and then from the second transmitting antennas to the first
`
`transmitting antenna in reverse order every second radar signal transmission period;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 10
`
`note that in Fig. 10, if the sequence is repeated, the sequence over periods two and
`
`three is TX2, TX1, TX1 TX2).
`
`9.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami
`
`(or Kishigami and Zivkovic) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US
`
`20150048967 (Morita).
`
`With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Kishigami does not disclose the
`
`claimed subject matter; Morita, however, teaches [that] in a case where the radar
`
`signals are generated using Spano codes, the switching controller switches among the
`
`plurality of transmitting antenna every 4 or 8 multiples of the radar signal transmission
`
`periods (See, e.g., Morita at Figs. 1-19 and the related text including Fig. 8 and [0010,
`
`101 -1 14], wherein Spano codes are employed and the switching controller switches
`
`among the plurality of transmitting antenna every 4 or 8 multiples of the radar signal
`
`transmission periods).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the effective filing date to provide the teachings of Morita to the apparatus and
`
`method of Kishigami for the purpose of providing a first Spano code sequence to a first
`
`transmitting antenna and a second Spano code sequence to a second transmitting
`
`antenna in order suppress interference between transmitting antennas. See Morita at
`
`[0010-11].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/455,948
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 11
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. See: US 20150295628 (Rambach); US 20150198700 (Morita);
`
`US 20140062763 (Kishigami); and US 7944390 (Kreiger).
`
`11.
`
`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 ENTIRE TY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE
`
`CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Daniel P Malley Sr. whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30-6); M-Th (8:30-6).
`
`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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on 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 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.
`
`