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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Pursuant the previously filed restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected claims 1- 14 for examination and has withdrawn claims 15-20. The Applicant has made this election without traverse.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the informalities described below. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the colored elements as described in the specification. For example, paragraphs 0015-0017 and 0038-0039 refer to colored elements and the drawings are depicted in gray scale. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figure 3 fails to show element 310 as recited in paragraph 0025 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 because they depict illegible text. For example, Figures 4, 9-11 and 14-15 depict text which is blurry and incomprehensible. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing legibly. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. For example, claims 9-14 recite mathematical relationships which are not described in the specification. Figure 15 recites the mathematical relationship; however, the specification fails to describe and define the mathematical relationship as recited in Figure 15. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 11 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 is incomplete where nothing is recited after, “isolating a target to a Doppler bin and elevation angle, wherein the”.
Claims 11 and 14 recite the use of the acronym “DOA”. This acronym has not been defined prior to its use in the claims.
Claim 14 recites, “The method as in claim further comprising”, where no claim number is recited from which claim 14 depends on.
Claim 14 recite the use of the acronym “ADMM”. This acronym has not been defined prior to its use in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the word “larges” which is mis-spelled and should recite “largest”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a method for designing a receive array and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A method for designing a receive array for a radar system, comprising: determining a format of receive data; and adopting a two-step approach of analogue and digital beamforming to find a high resolution estimate of target location in both azimuth and elevation angle.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of determining a format of receive data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim further recites the limitation of adopting a two-step approach of analogue and digital beamforming to find a high resolution estimate of target location in both azimuth and elevation angle. This limitation, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, adopting a two-step approach of analagoue and digital beamforming encompasses the user thinking of a process and writing the process steps which could be implemented to find a high resolution estimate of a target location in azimuth and elevation angle. Thus, this limitation is also a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, no additional limitations exist in claim 1 other than what was discussed in step 2A, prong 1. Therefore the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2:
The method as in claim 1, wherein the receive array has a plurality of columns corresponding to a transmit array for the radar system.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of “wherein the receive array has a plurality of columns corresponding to a transmit array for the radar system.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
For example, using pen and paper to design a receive array with a plurality of columns corresponding to a transmit array for the radar system is a mental process in the “method for designing a receive array”. Thus, this limitation amounts to a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, no additional limitations exist in claim 2 other than what was discussed in step 2A, prong 1. Therefore the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3:
The method as in claim 1, wherein the two-step approach comprises: processing received data from a sparse antenna array to determine a first estimate of an angle of arrival in elevation.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of “wherein the two-step approach comprises: processing received data from a sparse antenna array to determine a first estimate of an angle of arrival in elevation.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, the human receiving data and processing it using pen and paper to estimate an angle of arrival in elevation.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 4:
The method as in claim 3, wherein a second step comprises: processing received data to determine an azimuth direction of a target; and modifying the first estimate using the azimuth direction.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of “wherein a second step comprises: processing received data to determine an azimuth direction of a target; and modifying the first estimate using the azimuth direction.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, the human receiving data and processing it using pen and paper to determine an azimuth direction of a target. Furthermore, the recitation of the limitation of “and modifying the first estimate using the azimuth direction” also covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, the human receiving modifying the first estimation using mathematical manipulations of data using pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, no additional limitations exist in claim 4 other than what was discussed in step 2A, prong 1. Therefore the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5:
The method as in claim 3, further comprising: finding the azimuth direction of a plurality of targets; and improving resolution of elevation estimates of the angles of arrival for the plurality of targets.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of “further comprising: finding the azimuth direction of a plurality of targets; and improving resolution of elevation estimates of the angles of arrival for the plurality of targets.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, the human manipulating data using pen and paper to find the azimuth direction of a plurality of targets. Furthermore, the recitation of the limitation of “improving resolution of elevation estimates of the angles of arrival for the plurality of targets.” also covers performance of the limitation in the mind where the data is further manipulated by a human using pen and paper to improve the accuracy of the estimation.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, no additional limitations exist in claim 5 other than what was discussed in step 2A, prong 1. Therefore the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6:
The method as in claim 3, further comprising:
isolating a target to a Doppler bin and elevation angle, wherein the
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method for designing a receive array for a radar system where the claim further recites the limitation of: “isolating a target to a Doppler bin and elevation angle”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, the human manipulating data using pen and paper to isolate target data to a doppler bin and elevation angle.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, no additional limitations exist in claim 6 other than what was discussed in step 2A, prong 1. Therefore the same analysis applies here in 2B, where the claim does not recite additional elements which provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole is directed to a method for designing a receive array and does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7:
The method as in claim 3, further comprising:
applying analog beamsteering to determine a direction of arrival in elevation of a received signal.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is a process and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
No. The claim does not recite any judicial exceptions. The claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. With respect to mental processes, the claim does not recite a mental process because the step of “applying analog beamsteering to determine a direction of arrival in elevation of a received signal” cannot be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
N/A
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
N/A
Claim 8 is also eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to its dependency on claim 7 which is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim(s) 9-14 are all part of the method of claim 1 and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process using mathematical relationships. For Example:
Claim 9 recites “determining a format of received data comprises considering samples as…” is mere data manipulation and considered a mental process using a mathematical expression.
Claim 10 recites “projecting received data on a signal subspace of potential targets to be resolved by performing matrix operations given as…” is mere data manipulation and considered a mental process using a mathematical expression.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a set of columns of a dictionary matrix A is a subset of A calculated by defining a fine grid of perspective DOAs around a target location…” is mere data manipulation and considered a mental process using a mathematical expression.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising transforming complex-value variables to the real domain…” is mere data manipulation and considered a mental process using a mathematical expression.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising fitting received data to a sparse signal model to resolve closely spaced targets as…” is mere data manipulation and is considered an abstract idea using a mathematical expression.
Claim 14 recites “applying an ADMM algorithm…” is mere data manipulation and processing and is considered a mental process using a mathematical expression.
The limitations recited above are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. Furthermore, the claims 9-14 fail to recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-6 and 9-14 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 5 and 9-14 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the azimuth direction" in "finding the azimuth direction of a plurality of targets.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the angles of arrivals" in "improving resolution of elevation estimates of the angles of arrival for the plurality of targets.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites a mathematical expression where the variables have not been clearly defined. Variables such as “
A
^
”, “x”, “n”, “Ø”, “α”, “ε”, “dy”, “dx”, “dz”, “λ” and “
p
1
-
” have not been defined. All variables should be clearly defined and therefore, claim 9 lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites a mathematical expression where that variables have not been clearly defined. For example, variables such as “‘A” and “y^” have not been defined. All variables should be clearly defined and therefore, claim 10 lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites a mathematical expression where variables have not been clearly defined. Variables such as “y”, “A”, “R” and “x” have not been defined. All variables should be clearly defined and therefore, claim 12 lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites a mathematical expression where variables such as “y”, “A”, “x” and “λ” have not been defined. All variables should be clearly defined and therefore, claim 13 lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites a mathematical expression where variables such as “X”, “α”, “ß”, “λ”, “I”, “k”, “ρ”, “S”, “ω” and “T” have not been defined. All variables should be clearly defined and therefore, claim 14 lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites, “the steering vectors” in “a high resolution DOA estimation is the steering vectors corresponding to the larges values of a solution vector.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 fails to recite which claim it is dependent on and therefore, lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to its dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
NOTE: Claims 9-14 are replete with 112(b) errors due to their lack of antecedent basis for the mathematical expressions as recited in claim 9-14. As the variables have not been properly defined in the specification, drawings, nor claims, claims 9-14 been examined based on the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses
A method for designing a receive array for a radar system, comprising:
determining a format of receive data (see page 1976, Section B. Digital Beamforming Receiving Array Subsystem, “The receiving signal path can be summarized as follows. The reflected echo signals were captured by receiving antennas first, followed by passing through the downconverting mixers in order to get the beat frequency signals. Also, a LO and clock generation board was designed, which provides the LO signals needed by the PTA and receiving DBF array. Afterward, these beat signals were amplified and filtered by the IF module. Finally, analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) record the measured data in all the channels for producing multiple received beams pointed at different directions.”, the feature of “determining a format of receive data” is broad and the received signals being digitized and recorded is a “format of receive data”); and
adopting a two-step approach of analogue and digital beamforming to find a high resolution estimate of target location in both azimuth and elevation angle (see Fig. 1, of the designed hybrid radar system where a phased transmitting array performs the analog beamforming (Note: the signals passed through a DAC before beamforming and therefore analog beamforming is performed, see Fig. 8 of the phased transmitted array) where the DBF receiving array performs the digital beamforming).
Regarding claim 2, Yu further discloses
The method as in claim 1, wherein the receive array has a plurality of columns corresponding to a transmit array for the radar system (see Fig. 1, where the receive array has a plurality of columns).
Regarding claim 3, Yu further discloses
The method as in claim 1, wherein the two-step approach comprises:
processing received data from a sparse antenna array to determine a first estimate of an angle of arrival in elevation (see Fig. 5 where the processed received data from the antenna array is used to determine an elevation estimate (i.e. a first estimate of an angle of arrival)).
Regarding claim 7, Yu further discloses
The method as in claim 3, further comprising:
applying analog beamsteering to determine a direction of arrival in elevation of a received signal (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 where the analog beamsteering implemented by the transmitting beam steering (i.e. phased transmitting array) determine the direction of arrival in elevation).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.) in view of Shabtay et al. (US 20210116531 A1), hereinafter Shabtay.
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 3, wherein a second step (see Fig. 5, “Detection procedure of the proposed hybrid radar concept”) comprises:
processing received data to determine an azimuth direction of a target (see Fig. 5 where the processed received data from the antenna array is used to determine an azimuth estimate (i.e. azimuth direction of a target)));
Shabtay discloses,
processing received data to determine an azimuth direction of a target (see Fig. 9, step 906, First 1D (azimuth) Super Resolution, further see paragraph 0300, “In some demonstrative aspects, as indicated at block 906, the method may include determining a first 1D AoA spectrum 907 corresponding to a first dimension of the Azimuth-Elevation domain, e.g., the azimuth domain,”); and
modifying the first estimate using the azimuth direction (see Fig. 9, modifying the estimate of course elevation estimate using azimuth super resolution estimate at 906 to determine high resolution elevation estimate at 910).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Shabtay into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Lin fails to disclose the feature of claim 4 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Shabtay where course estimates of azimuth and elevation are used to determine higher resolution estimate for azimuth and elevation (see Flow for Fig. 9). The combination of Yu and Shabtay would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide reduced computational complexity in the system by performing super resolution processing on only areas of interest including the detected targets (see paragraph 0379 of Shabtay).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 3, further comprising:
finding the azimuth direction of a plurality of targets (see Fig. 5 where the processed received data from the antenna array is used to determine an azimuth estimate of a plurality of targets (i.e. azimuth direction of multiple targets))); and
Shabtay discloses,
improving resolution of elevation estimates of the angles of arrival for the plurality of targets (see Fig. 9, paragraph 0330, “In some demonstrative aspects, as indicated at block 912, the method may include detecting one or more second object hypotheses 913 in the second dimension (elevation), for example, based on the second 1D AoA spectrum 911. For example, radar processor 834 (FIG. 8) may detect the one or more second object hypotheses 913 based on the second 1D AoA spectrum 911.”, where a second estimate of elevation is performed based on the first elevation estimate (i.e. elevation estimate is improved)).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Shabtay into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Lin fails to disclose the feature of claim 5 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Shabtay where first estimates of elevation for a plurality of targets is improved using a hypotheses to improved resolution. The combination of Yu and Shabtay would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide reduced computational complexity in the system by performing super resolution processing on only areas of interest including the detected targets (see paragraph 0379 of Shabtay).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 3,
Shabtay discloses,
isolating a target to a Doppler bin and elevation angle (paragraph 0281, “In some demonstrative aspects, the range R may be known, for example, according to a range-Doppler bin of an AoA. Accordingly, an azimuth vector, denoted “Az_Vector”, and an elevation vector, denoted “El_Vector”, of the target T may be determined, e.g., as follows..), where , wherein the (limitation incomplete)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Shabtay into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Lin fails to disclose the feature of claim 6 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Shabtay where the angle of arrival data is according to range-doppler bins for angle of arrivals in elevation and azimuth. The combination of Yu and Shabtay would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide reduced computational complexity in the system by performing super resolution processing on only areas of interest including the detected targets (see paragraph 0379 of Shabtay).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.) in view of Lin et al. (Lin, Zhipeng, et al. "Nested hybrid cylindrical array design and DoA estimation for massive IoT networks." IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 39.4 (2020): 919-933.), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 7,
Lin discloses,
wherein applying analog beamsteering comprises phase shifting a received signal (see Fig. 3, using phase shifters to perform the analog beamforming for the antenna array).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Lin into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Yu fails to disclose the feature of claim 8 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Lin where analog beamforming performed by the phased array uses phase shifters. The combination of Yu and Lin would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a beamforming technique which utilizes phased array analog beamforming first to allow for a direction of arrival estimation with minimum receiver channels (see Conclusion of Lin).
Claim(s) 9,10,11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220120847 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim I,
PNG
media_image1.png
32
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang discloses,
wherein determining a format of received data comprises considering samples as:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see paragraph 0051 and equation 4, “Because the actual pairs 410 of the objects 106 should be within the N.sub.AZN.sub.EL angle pairs, the angle-finding module 130 can use the following equation to identify the actual pairs 410: y=Ax+η (4)”, further see paragraph 0049 which defines the dictionary matrix as A; NOTE: as the variables in the mathematical expressions of claim 9 have not been defined (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section), the Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean a format of received data comprises considering samples as y=Ax+η.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zhang into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Yu fails to disclose the feature of claim 9 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Zhang as shown in the citation above. The combination of Yu and Zhang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a beamforming technique for accurate angular estimations (see paragraph 0016 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Yu further discloses
The method as in claim 9, further comprising:
projecting received data on a signal subspace of potential targets to be resolved by performing matrix operations given as… (see Fig. 5 of Yu which projects the received data on a signal subspace to resolve target azimuth/elevation locations; NOTE: as the variables in the mathematical expression of claim 10 have not been defined (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section), the Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean the projection of the received data onto a signal subspace of potential targets).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses [Note: what Yu fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 10,
Zhang discloses,
wherein a set of columns of a dictionary matrix A is a subset of A calculated by defining a fine grid of perspective DOAs around a target location (see paragraph 0049, where the angle finding module 130 uses dictionary matrix A as defined in equation 3 to define the angle pairs for the steering vector directed to the target, further see paragraph 0051, “Because the actual pairs 410 of the objects 106 should be within the N.sub.AZN.sub.EL angle pairs, the angle-finding module 130 can use the following equation to identify the actual pairs 410: y=Ax+η (4)”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zhang into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Yu fails to disclose the feature of claim 11 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Zhang as shown in the citation above. The combination of Yu and Zhang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a beamforming technique for accurate angular estimations (see paragraph 0016 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 13, Yu further discloses
The method as in claim 10, further comprising fitting received data to a sparse signal model to resolve closely spaced targets as…(see Fig. 5 where the received data is fitted to be depicted on a grid where signals are resolved to detect closely spaced targets; NOTE: as the variables in the expressions of claim 13 have not been defined (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section), the Examiner is interpreting this claim to simply mean the received signals are fitted using a model to resolve closely spaced targets).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220120847 A1) further in view of Li et al. (US 20220260708 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yu and Zhang discloses [Note: what the combination of Yu and Zhang fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim 10,
Li discloses,
further comprising transforming complex-value variables to the real domain… (see paragraph 0054, “The angle-finding module 114 can perform a unitary transform on the data matrix X to generate a real-valued data matrix 306, Y. The real-valued data matrix 406 is represented by Equation (4)”; NOTE: as the variables in the expressions of claim 12 have not been defined (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section), the Examiner is interpreting this claim to simply mean the received data is transformed into the real domain);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Li into the invention of Yu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radio systems implementing beamforming techniques to determine angle of arrival information of targets. Yu fails to disclose the feature of claim 12 as mentioned above. This feature is disclosed by Li as shown in the citation above. The combination of Yu and Li would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a beamforming technique for accurate angular estimations at lower cost (see paragraph 0003 of Li).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (Yu, Yingrui, et al. "A hybrid radar system with a phased transmitting array and a digital beamforming receiving array." IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 69.4 (2020): 1970-1981.) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220120847 A1) further in view of Deng et al. (CN 111352078 A), hereinafter Deng.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yu and Zhang discloses [Note: what the combination of Yu and Zhang fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method as in claim
Deng discloses,
comprising applying an ADMM algorithm to angular estimation (see limitation so claim 3, “the method for designing the low-interception frequency-controlled array MIMO radar transmitting/receiving system based on the ADMM under clutter according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises: steering vectors of the transmit antenna array…”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Deng into the invention of Yu in view of Zhang. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a beamforming technique for accurate angular estimations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648