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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Under section heading ‘Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, in regards to the arguments from Page 13 Paragraph Two to Page 15 Paragraph Three, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application has a larger fov that is scanned to completion over the course of scanning smaller fields of view that add up. Achour does the same, where there is a larger field of view which is scanned to completion as the smaller fov moves from one end (of the total fov) to the other end, where the larger sweeping fov and the focused fov both make up smaller chunks of the total fov. The difference between Achour and the instant application is that Achour does not disclose 9 discrete nonoverlapping smaller fields of view, but the claims of the instant application, as written, also do not disclose 9 discrete smaller fields of view. As mentioned in the last OA, the beam of Achour only points in a limited number of directions, so the beam takes on, what the Examiner interprets as, a series of predetermined fields of view. Therefore, the series of smaller beams trace out the total field of view in what is tantamount to scanning a plurality of predetermined fields of view. Jiang discusses capturing data in a sequentially order; when used in combination with Achour, Achour can sequentially scan through the total fov which would help to ensure that the radar does not miss an object by erratically moving the fov. Therefore, the predetermined fields of Achour would be scanned in a sequential order. In creating a list for tracking objects of interest, which includes the object's coordinates, and tracking said objects Achour also creates a preferential field of view based on the coordinates of the target in question. Here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation any, fov of a radar tracking an object is a preferential field of view as the purpose of Achour's radar is to find potential hazards on the road.
Under section heading ‘Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, in regards to the arguments from Page 15 Paragraph Four to Page 17 Paragraph Three, the Examiner respectfully disagrees to some of the arguments. Achour does disclose a scan list as discussed above, and in creating the scanned list with coordinates of the targets the list consists of a plurality of fields of view which will be scanned. Achour does not disclose recognizing the entrance or exiting of an object. The limitation of including an entrance and exit field of view overcomes the initial rejection. However, claim 1 and 11 have a new rejection in light of the reference Wright US 9229102 B1.
Under section heading ‘Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, in regards to the arguments from Page 17 Paragraph Four to Page 18 Paragraph One the Examiner respectfully disagrees as claim 1 and 11 still stand rejected all dependent claims also remain rejected.
Claim Interpretation
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
11. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 11, “a radar unit for generating a radio frequency signal, radiating the radio frequency signal to a field of view of the radar unit, and receiving a feedback signal to scan the field of view”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed generating, sending, and receiving of a signal is a signal generator and a transmit and receive antenna ("The signal generator 204 generates a radio frequency signal, and sends the radio frequency signal to the transmit unit 203"; "a transmit antenna unit 201 and a receive antenna unit 202. The transmit antenna unit 201 includes a plurality of transmit antennas 208-1 to 208-K. The transmit antennas 208-1 to 208-K radiate the foregoing radio frequency signal to the free space. The receive antenna unit 202 includes a plurality of receive antennas 209-1 to 209-N and 210-1 to 210-M to receive the feedback signal.")
Claim 1, “a processing unit for performing the following steps in a scanning round: (a) sending a control signal to cause the radar unit to scan a plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit, recording, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, coordinates of each of the at least one tracked object, and setting at least one preferential field of view based on the coordinates of the each of the at least one tracked object; and (b) creating a scan list, setting, in response to finding the at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning,” The corresponding structure in the claim for controlling the scanning of the field of view and recording the coordinates of an object onto a list is the processor 1301 (The processor 1301 may be a general-purpose processor, including a central processing unit (CPU), a tensor processing unit, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or another programmable logic device, and can implement or execute the methods and steps disclosed in the foregoing embodiments.)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9,11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Achour (US 20180348343 A1) in view of Jiang (US 10558217 B2) further in view of Wright US 9229102 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Achour discloses
A radar scanning system, comprising: a radar unit for generating a radio frequency signal (Paragraph 0029, “A transceiver module 108 coupled to the iMTM antenna structure 106 prepares a signal for transmission”)), radiating the radio frequency signal to a field of view of the radar unit, and receiving a feedback signal to scan the field of view (Paragraph 0112, “Some other considerations for antenna applications, such as for radar antennas used in vehicles, include the antenna design, capabilities, and receiver and transmitter configurations”) and a processing unit for performing the following steps in a scanning round: (a) sending a control signal to cause the radar unit to scan a plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit (Fig. 2, element 206 and 204; Paragraph 0026, “For use in an autonomous driving vehicle, the iMTM radar system may perform a coarse focus with a large beam width as an ambient condition,…in this way, the larger beam width may sweep the full FoV of the iMTM antenna module, reducing the time to scan the FoV” where the radar system has predetermined fovs from the large beam scanning the entire fov, which is a default action ), recording, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, coordinates of each of the at least one tracked object, and setting at least one preferential field of view based on the coordinates of the each of the at least one tracked object (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118; paragraph 0043 “indicating a next radiation beam, wherein a radiation beam may be specified by parameters such as beam width, transmit angle, transmit direction and so forth” where focusing on an object versus empty space is preferential for a radar system looking for hazards and the wide scan may be observing empty space), wherein the plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit constitute a total field of view of the radar unit (Paragraph 0026, “the larger beam width may sweep the full FoV of the iMTM antenna module, reducing the time to scan the FoV” where the radar system has predetermined fovs from the large beam scanning the entire fov and the predetermined fields of view make up the total field of view); and (b) creating a scan list wherein the scan list comprises the plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118” where there are multiple targets and the fov generated are predetermined as the radar can only look in a limited number of directions), setting, in response to finding the at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scan list to comprise the at least one preferential field of view (Paragraph 0034, “The multi-object tracker 118 matches candidate targets identified by the target identification and decision module 114 with targets it has detected in previous time windows. By combining information from previous measurements, expected measurement uncertainties, and some physical knowledge, the multi-object tracker 118 generates robust, accurate estimates of target locations” where if the object is continued to be detected it is added to the scan list), and controlling, based on the scan list and a scanning and processing policy, the radar unit to perform scanning (Paragraph 0029, “The RF beams and their parameters (e.g., beam width, phase, azimuth and elevation angles, etc.) are controlled by antenna controller 110, such as at the direction of iMTM interface module 104” where the multi-object tracker, Target List, and Target Identification and Decision Module make up the iMTM interface module which keeps a list of targets and to track those targets directs the antenna controller how to change the fov of the radar beam) to scan a plurality of fields of view in the scan list (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118” where there are multiple targets and the fov generated are predetermined as the radar can only look in a limited number of directions). Achour does not disclose that the predetermined fields of view are scanned in any kind of sequential order. Achour also does not disclose an entrance-exist field of view, wherein the entrance-exist field of view is a first field of view that is in the predetermined fields of view and that is marked by the processing unit as covering an object entrance-exit.
Jiang discloses
That the fields of view are scanned sequentially in an order (Paragraph 0050, “The off-line evaluation 300 includes capturing and storing a plurality of data inputs 310 in the form of a plurality of sequentially captured frames of data for a stored driving scenario 315, wherein the stored driving scenario 315 includes a spatial environment associated with a geographic location that includes a perspective and a field of view that is based upon a position and heading of the vehicle”).
Achour and Jiang arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern using a radar system to monitor the environment around a vehicle. Achour can already track and classify multiple objects (requiring multiple beams), perform a predetermined radar beam sweep, and store information on targets (including location) cataloged by time. Therefore, it is feasible to go the next step and use the large radar beam, predetermined to sequentially scan the environment, to create an environmental map around the vehicle. The sequential order would facilitate efficiently creating an environmental map and the environmental map would be useful for checking if the radar system is operating correctly. Jiang elaborates on that point, Abstract, “A perception module of a spatial monitoring system to monitor and characterize a spatial environment proximal to an autonomous vehicle … The perception module is executed to determine an estimated spatial environment for the driving scenario based upon the stored frames of data associated with the driving scenario, and the estimated spatial environment is compared to the actual spatial environment for the driving scenario. A first performance index for the perception module is determined based upon the comparing, and a fault can be detected.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Jiang to add in a sequential observation pattern to create an environmental map that could be used for fault checking the radar system.
Wright discloses
An entrance-exist field of view, wherein the entrance-exist field of view is a first field of view that is in the predetermined fields of view and that is marked by the processing unit as covering an object entrance-exit (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device filters the set of measurements to obtain a first subset of measurements associated with moving targets and a second subset of measurements associated with stationary or near-stationary targets. Then, for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements, the device: (a) determines a set of hypotheses, the set of hypotheses including: i) classifying the respective measurement as clutter, ii) associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified" where Wright can recognize when an object enters a field of view and when it exits i.e., devoid of detections)
Achour discloses a scan list with predetermined fields of view, preferential fields of view and small fields of view that scan a larger area. Achour also discloses tracking objects but it does not disclose recognizing when an object enters or exits a field of view. The predetermined fields of view of Achour could be modified to include the recognition of an object entering and exiting. In Wright the entire field of view, which is the predetermined field of view, is scanned, looking for entering and exiting objects. It would be obvious to scan only a portion of the field of view, where one knows objects will leave and enter, after scanning the entire field of view looking for unpredictable entrances and exits. Wright also notes that it is beneficial to scan a field devoid of targets to ascertain environmental problems with the radar device as noted, Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner". Additionally, in order to scan the field of view to look for blockages it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets in an empty field it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to include recognizing when an object enters or leaves a field of view in order to find unpredictable entrances of potential hazards so the system can react and to help ascertain environmental problems.
Regarding claim 2, Achour further discloses
A radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one preferential field of view comprises at least one first field of view of the at least one tracked object found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view, and the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field of view a predetermined number of times (Paragraph 0031, "In operation, the antenna controller 110 is responsible for directing the iMTM antenna structure 106 to generate RF beams with determined parameters such as beam width, transmit angle, and so on. The antenna controller 110 may, for example, determine the parameters at the direction of iMTM interface module 104, which may at any given time want to focus on a specific area of a FoV upon identifying targets of interest in the vehicle's path or surrounding environment" where the radar system find the target in the predetermined fov then follows up with the preferential fov). It is understood that finding the object would be one scan (the initial point cloud), and focusing on the object would require at least one more scan, resulting in at least two scans per object i.e., a predetermined number of scans.
Regarding claim 4, Achour further discloses
A radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one preferential field-of-view comprises at least one first field-of-view of the at least one tracked object found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view (Fig 1, element 114 and 104, Paragraph 0033, "The target identification and decision module 114 receives the point cloud from the data pre-processing module 112, processes the point cloud to detect and identify targets, and determines the control actions to be performed by the iMTM antenna module 102. For example, the target identification and decision module 114 may detect a cyclist on the path of the vehicle and direct the iMTM antenna module 102, at the instruction of its antenna controller 110, to focus additional RF beams at a given phase shift and direction within the portion of the FoV corresponding to the cyclist's location" and, paragraph 0030, "The radar data may be organized in sets of Range-Doppler (“RD”) map information, corresponding to 4D information that is determined by each RF beam radiated off of targets, such as azimuthal angles, elevation angles, range and velocity" where the radar system finds the target in the predetermined fov then follows up with the preferential fov), the scan list comprises the predetermined fields of view, and the scanning and processing policy comprises that the predetermined fields of view are scanned, but the processing unit only processes preferential field-of-view data corresponding to the at least one preferential field-of-view (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118. The tracking information provided by the multi-object tracker 118 and the micro-doppler signal provided by the micro-doppler module 116 are combined to produce an output containing the type of target identified, their location, their velocity, and so on”).
Regarding claim 9, Achour further discloses
A radar scanning system according to claim 1, comprising a pointing control unit for adjusting a field-of-view direction of the radar unit according to the control signal, wherein when the pointing control unit adjusts the radar unit (Paragraph 0031, "In operation, the antenna controller 110 is responsible for directing the iMTM antenna structure 106 to generate RF beams with determined parameters such as beam width, transmit angle, and so on. The antenna controller 110 may, for example, determine the parameters at the direction of iMTM interface module 104, which may at any given time want to focus on a specific area of a FoV upon identifying targets of interest in the vehicle's path or surrounding environment") the field-of-view direction is maintained pointing to a center point of the field-of-view of the radar unit (Figure 5 element 500; Paragraph 0031, "In operation, the antenna controller 110 is responsible for directing the iMTM antenna structure 106” where the antennas are adjusted/focused but the radar system maintains its full fov in front of the vehicle and therefore maintains the center point of the full fov).
Regarding claim 11, Achour discloses
A scanning method, applicable to a radar scanning system and executable by a processing unit, wherein the radar scanning system comprises a radar unit for generating a radio frequency signal, (Paragraph 0029, “A transceiver module 108 coupled to the iMTM antenna structure 106 prepares a signal for transmission”)), radiating the radio frequency signal to a field of view of the radar unit, and receiving a feedback signal to scan the field of view (Paragraph 0112, “Some other considerations for antenna applications, such as for radar antennas used in vehicles, include the antenna design, capabilities, and receiver and transmitter configurations”) and a processing unit; and scanning method comprises performing the following steps in a scanning round: (a) sending a control signal to cause the radar unit to scan a plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit (Fig. 2, element 206 and 204, Paragraph 0026, “For use in an autonomous driving vehicle, the iMTM radar system may perform a coarse focus with a large beam width as an ambient condition,…in this way, the larger beam width may sweep the full FoV of the iMTM antenna module, reducing the time to scan the FoV” where the radar system has predetermined fovs from the large beam scanning the entire fov, which is a default action), recording, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, coordinates of each of the at least one tracked object, and setting at least one preferential field of view based on the coordinates of the each of the at least one tracked object (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118; paragraph 0043 “indicating a next radiation beam, wherein a radiation beam may be specified by parameters such as beam width, transmit angle, transmit direction and so forth” where focusing on an object versus empty space is preferential for a radar system looking for hazards and the wide scan may be observing empty space) , wherein the plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit constitute a total field of view of the radar unit (Paragraph 0026, “the larger beam width may sweep the full FoV of the iMTM antenna module, reducing the time to scan the FoV” where the radar system has predetermined fovs from the large beam scanning the entire fov and the predetermined fields of view make up the total field of view); and (b) creating a scan list, wherein the scan list comprises the plurality of predetermined fields of view of the radar unit (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118” where there are multiple targets and the fov generated are predetermined as the radar can only look in a limited number of directions), setting, in response to finding the at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scan list to comprise the at least one preferential field of view (Paragraph 0034, “The multi-object tracker 118 matches candidate targets identified by the target identification and decision module 114 with targets it has detected in previous time windows. By combining information from previous measurements, expected measurement uncertainties, and some physical knowledge, the multi-object tracker 118 generates robust, accurate estimates of target locations” where if the object is continued to be detected it is added to the scan list), and controlling, based on the scan list and a scanning and processing policy, the radar unit to perform scanning (Paragraph 0029, “The RF beams and their parameters (e.g., beam width, phase, azimuth and elevation angles, etc.) are controlled by antenna controller 110, such as at the direction of iMTM interface module 104” where the multi-object tracker, Target List, and Target Identification and Decision Module make up the iMTM interface module which keeps a list of targets and to track those targets directs the antenna controller how to change the fov of the radar beam) to scan a plurality of fields of view in the scan list (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118” where there are multiple targets and the fov generated are predetermined as the radar can only look in a limited number of directions). Achour does not disclose that the predetermined fields of view are scanned in any kind of sequential order. Achour also does not disclose an entrance-exist field of view, wherein the entrance-exist field of view is a first field of view that is in the predetermined fields of view and that is marked by the processing unit as covering an object entrance-exit.
Jiang discloses
That the fields of view are scanned sequentially in an order (Paragraph 0050, “The off-line evaluation 300 includes capturing and storing a plurality of data inputs 310 in the form of a plurality of sequentially captured frames of data for a stored driving scenario 315, wherein the stored driving scenario 315 includes a spatial environment associated with a geographic location that includes a perspective and a field of view that is based upon a position and heading of the vehicle”).
Achour and Jiang arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern using a radar system to monitor the environment around a vehicle. Achour can already track and classify multiple objects (requiring multiple beams), perform a predetermined radar beam sweep, and store information on targets (including location) cataloged by time. Therefore, it is feasible to go the next step and use the large radar beam, predetermined to sequentially scan the environment, to create an environmental map around the vehicle. The sequential order would facilitate efficiently creating an environmental map and the environmental map would be useful for checking if the radar system is operating correctly. Jiang elaborates on that point, Abstract, “A perception module of a spatial monitoring system to monitor and characterize a spatial environment proximal to an autonomous vehicle … The perception module is executed to determine an estimated spatial environment for the driving scenario based upon the stored frames of data associated with the driving scenario, and the estimated spatial environment is compared to the actual spatial environment for the driving scenario. A first performance index for the perception module is determined based upon the comparing, and a fault can be detected.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Jiang to add in a sequential observation pattern to create an environmental map that could be used for fault checking the radar system.
Wright discloses
An entrance-exist field of view, wherein the entrance-exist field of view is a first field of view that is in the predetermined fields of view and that is marked by the processing unit as covering an object entrance-exit (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device filters the set of measurements to obtain a first subset of measurements associated with moving targets and a second subset of measurements associated with stationary or near-stationary targets. Then, for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements, the device: (a) determines a set of hypotheses, the set of hypotheses including: i) classifying the respective measurement as clutter, ii) associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified" where Wright can recognize when an object enters a field of view and when it exits i.e., devoid of detections)
Achour discloses a scan list with predetermined fields of view, preferential fields of view and small fields of view that scan a larger area. Achour also discloses tracking objects but it does not disclose recognizing when an object enters or exits a field of view. The predetermined fields of view of Achour could be modified to include the recognition of an object entering and exiting. In Wright the entire field of view, which is the predetermined field of view, is scanned, looking for entering and exiting objects. It would be obvious to scan only a portion of the field of view, where one knows objects will leave and enter, after scanning the entire field of view looking for unpredictable entrances and exits. Wright also notes that it is beneficial to scan a field devoid of targets to ascertain environmental problems with the radar device as noted, Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner". Additionally, in order to scan the field of view to look for blockages it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets in an empty field it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to include recognizing when an object enters or leaves a field of view in order to find unpredictable entrances of potential hazards so the system can react and to help ascertain environmental problems.
Regarding claim 12, Achour further discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one preferential field of view comprises at least one first field of view of the at least one tracked object found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view, and the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field of view a predetermined number of times (Paragraph 0026, “the iMTM radar system may perform a coarse focus with a large beam width as an ambient condition, and then narrow the beam width when an echo is received.”; Paragraph 0031, "In operation, the antenna controller 110 is responsible for directing the iMTM antenna structure 106 to generate RF beams with determined parameters such as beam width, transmit angle, and so on. The antenna controller 110 may, for example, determine the parameters at the direction of iMTM interface module 104, which may at any given time want to focus on a specific area of a FoV upon identifying targets of interest in the vehicle's path or surrounding environment"). It is understood that finding the object would be one scan (the initial point cloud), and focusing on the object would require at least one more scan, resulting in at least two scans per object i.e., a predetermined number of scans.
Regarding claim 14, Achour further discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one preferential field-of-view comprises at least one first field-of-view of the at least one tracked object found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view (Fig 1, element 114 and 104, Paragraph 0033, "The target identification and decision module 114 receives the point cloud from the data pre-processing module 112, processes the point cloud to detect and identify targets, and determines the control actions to be performed by the iMTM antenna module 102. For example, the target identification and decision module 114 may detect a cyclist on the path of the vehicle and direct the iMTM antenna module 102, at the instruction of its antenna controller 110, to focus additional RF beams at a given phase shift and direction within the portion of the FoV corresponding to the cyclist's location" and, paragraph 0030, "The radar data may be organized in sets of Range-Doppler (“RD”) map information, corresponding to 4D information that is determined by each RF beam radiated off of targets, such as azimuthal angles, elevation angles, range and velocity").), the scan list comprises the predetermined fields of view, and the scanning and processing policy comprises that the predetermined fields of view are scanned, but the processing unit only processes preferential field-of-view data corresponding to the at least one preferential field-of-view (Paragraph 0035, "Information on identified targets over time are then stored at a Target List and Occupancy Map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118. The tracking information provided by the multi-object tracker 118 and the micro-doppler signal provided by the micro-doppler module 116 are combined to produce an output containing the type of target identified, their location, their velocity, and so on.)
23. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achour (US 20180348343 A1) in view of Jiang (US 10558217 B2) further in view of Wright US 9229102 B1 and further in view of Li (US 20230103178 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Antennas that can be directed by the processing unit and subsequently change the parameters of the field of view. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (a) comprises: creating, in response to that the at least one tracked object comprises two objects between which a distance is less than a preset distance, a new field of view based on a field of view range of the radar unit, to cause the new field of view to cover the two objects.
Li discloses
The radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein step (a) comprises: creating, in response to that the at least one tracked object comprises two objects between which a distance is less than a preset distance, a new field of view based on a field of view range of the radar unit, to cause the new field of view to cover the two objects (Paragraph, 0009, "Optionally, the one or more object tracks may be identified by, for each of the plurality of previously determined object tracks: identifying a track center point for that object track, transforming the track center point to a frame of reference corresponding to the radar sensor, and determining whether that track center point lies within the extended FOV of the radar sensor." Fig. 4A and 4B element 402, 404, 412 and 414, paragraph, 0043, "Sensors have different scan modes with corresponding operating ranges and angular coverages (field of view “FOV”), and are capable of estimating different parameters within their operating range. The system may assess received radar measurements to determine the scan mode of the radar measurements (for example, based on metadata and/or other information associated with the received radar measurements)…An example far range scan may cover objects from about 0.2. to about 250 meters in range of radar with narrow azimuth coverage from around −10 to 10 degrees (region 412 within the solid lines in FIG. 4B). Therefore, the system may determine the original radar FOV space in the sensor frame of reference as (θ, r) based on the scan mode, where: θ∈[θlower,θupper], r∈[rlower,rupper]." Paragraph, 0044, "The system may then compute an extended radar FOV space (306)").
Achour and Li arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern the operation of a radar device with variable fields of view. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Li to improve tracking with a changing field of view for multiple objects. Li teaches that from multiple tracked objects (Fig. 1 element T4, T5, T6 and T7) the radar device can then extend its field of view (Fig. 4A and 4B) to continue tracking those objects, therefore creating a new field of view "so as to avoid, follow, or otherwise survey the object" (paragraph 0002). The new field of view is based on the range and angular position of the objects and when an object leaves the angular or distance boundaries of the radar's field of view the object is no longer tracked. It would be obvious that this metric relates to the radar's ability to fit both objects within its field of view, especially since this determination is based on the range and angle. It would also be obvious that one only needs the range and angle to calculate the arc length or distance between two objects in a polar coordinate system. Additionally, in tracking objects, and changing the field of view to do so, the radar device is creating a new preferred field of view. Thus, in the modification of Achour by Li, claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Antennas that can be directed by the processing unit and subsequently change the parameters of the field of view. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (a) comprises: creating, in response to that the at least one tracked object comprises two objects between which a distance is less than a preset distance, a new field of view based on a field of view range of the radar unit, to cause the new field of view to cover the two objects.
Li discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein step (a) comprises: creating, in response to that the at least one tracked object comprises two objects between which a distance is less than a preset distance, a new field of view based on a field of view range of the radar unit, to cause the new field of view to cover the two objects (Paragraph, 0009, "Optionally, the one or more object tracks may be identified by, for each of the plurality of previously determined object tracks: identifying a track center point for that object track, transforming the track center point to a frame of reference corresponding to the radar sensor, and determining whether that track center point lies within the extended FOV of the radar sensor." Fig. 4A and 4B element 402, 404, 412 and 414, paragraph, 0043, "Sensors have different scan modes with corresponding operating ranges and angular coverages (field of view “FOV”), and are capable of estimating different parameters within their operating range. The system may assess received radar measurements to determine the scan mode of the radar measurements (for example, based on metadata and/or other information associated with the received radar measurements)…An example far range scan may cover objects from about 0.2. to about 250 meters in range of radar with narrow azimuth coverage from around −10 to 10 degrees (region 412 within the solid lines in FIG. 4B). Therefore, the system may determine the original radar FOV space in the sensor frame of reference as (θ, r) based on the scan mode, where: θ∈[θlower,θupper], r∈[rlower,rupper]." Paragraph, 0044, "The system may then compute an extended radar FOV space (306)").
Achour and Li are considered analogous arts as they both concern the operation of a radar device with variable fields of view. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Li to improve tracking with a changing field of view for multiple objects. Li teaches that from multiple tracked objects (Fig. 1 element T4, T5, T6 and T7) the radar device can then extend its field of view (Fig. 4A and 4B) to continue tracking those objects, therefore creating a new field of view "so as to avoid, follow, or otherwise survey the object" (paragraph 0002). The new field of view is based on the range and angular position of the objects and when an object leaves the angular or distance boundaries of the radar's field of view the object is no longer tracked. It would be obvious that this metric relates to the radar's ability to fit both objects within its field of view, especially since this determination is based on the range and angle. It would also be obvious that one only needs the range and angle to calculate the arc length or distance between two objects in a polar coordinate system. Additionally, in tracking objects, and changing the field of view to do so, the radar device is creating a new preferred field of view. Thus, in the modification of Achour by Li, claim 13 is rendered obvious.
24. Claims 5, 6, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achour (US 20180348343 A1) in view of Jiang (US 10558217 B2) further in view of Wright (US 9229102 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Tracking an object in the field of view of the radar device, with a target list, through the use of a processing unit. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to that the at least one tracked object is not found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the entrance-exit field of view a predetermined number of times.
Wright discloses
A radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to that the at least one tracked object is not found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the entrance-exit field of view a predetermined number of times (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device … for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements… associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified"; Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner").
Achour and Wright are considered analogous arts as they both concern detecting new objects in the field of view of the radar device. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to scan empty fields to look for new targets. The entrance-exit field of view is a portion of the predetermined field of view; and it is designated for finding entering and exiting objects. In Wright the entire field of view, which is the predetermined field of view, is scanned, looking for entering and exiting objects. It would be obvious to scan only a portion of the field of view, where one knows objects will leave and enter, after scanning the entire field of view looking for unpredictable entrances and exits. In order to scan the field of view to look for blockages it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets in an empty field it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Therefore, because claim 5 of the instant application is performing the same procedure as Wright, but on a smaller portion of the total predetermined field of view, claim 5 is obvious.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Tracking an object in the field of view of the radar device, with a target list, through the use of a processing unit. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field-of-view and the entrance-exit field-of-view a predetermined number of times.
Wright discloses
The radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field-of-view and the entrance-exit field-of-view a predetermined number of times (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device … for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements… associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified"; Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner"; Fig. 16, element 1620, col 34, line 33, "identify, track and classify multiple objects").
Achour and Wright arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern detecting new objects in the field of view of the radar device. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to track empty fields alongside known objects. Wright teaches the ability to, "identify, track and classify multiple objects" (Fig. 16, element 1620, col 34, line 33). Wright also teaches that it scans fields with no objects in order to "initializing a new target" (col. 2 line 27) and to "identify RF blockages" (Col 20, line 54). A radar device implemented on a car, as in Achour, must find new targets as a fundamental part of its function. Therefore, it would be obvious to simultaneously track a known object while also checking for new objects in empty fields. Additionally, in order to scan the field of view to look for blockages, and/or to track known targets it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Thus claim 6 is rendered obvious in light of Achour and Wright.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Tracking an object in the field of view of the radar device, with a target list, through the use of a processing unit. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to that the at least one tracked object is not found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the entrance-exit field of view a predetermined number of times.
Wright discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to that the at least one tracked object is not found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the entrance-exit field of view a predetermined number of times (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device … for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements… associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified"; Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner").
Achour and Wright are considered analogous arts as they both concern detecting new objects in the field of view of the radar device. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to scan empty fields to look for new targets. The entrance-exit field of view is a portion of the predetermined field of view; and it is designated for finding entering and exiting objects. In Wright the entire field of view, which is the predetermined field of view, is scanned, looking for entering and exiting objects. It would be obvious to scan only a portion of the field of view, where one knows objects will leave and enter, after scanning the entire field of view looking for unpredictable entrances and exits. In order to scan the field of view to look for blockages it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets in an empty field it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Therefore, because claim 5 of the instant application is performing the same procedure as Wright, but on a smaller portion of the total predetermined field of view, claim 5 is obvious.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
Tracking an object in the field of view of the radar device, with a target list, through the use of a processing unit. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a radar scanning system wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field-of-view and the entrance-exit field-of-view a predetermined number of times.
Wright discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein step (b) comprises: setting, in response to finding at least one tracked object in the predetermined fields of view through scanning, the scanning and processing policy comprises scanning the at least one preferential field-of-view and the entrance-exit field-of-view a predetermined number of times (Col 2, lines 17-27, "The device … for each measurement in the first subset of measurements and each measurement in the second subset of measurements… associating the respective measurement with an existing target, or iii) initializing a new target with the respective measurement"; If there are no moving targets found the radar apparatus will scan the fov, Col 21, lines 49-51, " If the clutter map is devoid of detections or has an azimuth sector devoid of detections, a blockage or attenuation may be identified"; Col 20, line 54-64, "The system may identify RF blockages by processing a clutter map generated based on detections of non-moving entities to identify anomalies (i.e., areas substantially clear of clutter). For example, FIG. 9E and FIG. 9F both illustrate sample clutter maps. FIG. 9E shows an example clutter map with no blockage, i.e., the clutter is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the clutter map. By contrast, FIG. 9F shows an example clutter map with a metal cabinet partially blocking the radar signals, which results in a sector mostly devoid of detections or skewed to one side. The system may identify attenuation areas in a similar manner"; Fig. 16, element 1620, col 34, line 33, "identify, track and classify multiple objects").
Achour and Wright arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern detecting new objects in the field of view of the radar device. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Wright to track empty fields alongside known objects. Wright teaches the ability to, "identify, track and classify multiple objects" (Fig. 16, element 1620, col 34, line 33). Wright also teaches that it scans fields with no objects in order to "initializing a new target" (col. 2 line 27) and to "identify RF blockages" (Col 20, line 54). A radar device implemented on a car, as in Achour, must find new targets as a fundamental part of its function. Therefore, it would be obvious to simultaneously track a known object while also checking for new objects in empty fields. Additionally, in order to scan the field of view to look for blockages, and/or to track known targets it would require an initial scan to find the object and a subsequent scan to track the object, resulting in at least 2 predetermined number of scans; to look for new targets it would be obvious to perform multiple predetermined scans until an object is found. Thus claim 6 is rendered obvious in light of Achour and Wright.
25. Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achour (US 20180348343 A1) in view of Jiang (US 10558217 B2) further in view of Wright US 9229102 B1 further in view of Sanderovich (US 20230139751 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
A radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein step (a) comprises: (a1) generating a point cloud image for the feedback signal of each of the predetermined fields of view (Paragraph 0032, “The antenna module 102 then transmits 4D radar data to the data pre-processing module 112 for generating a point cloud that is then sent to the iMTM interface module 104”). The combination of Achour and Jiang does not explicitly disclose step (a2) performing, according to a clustering algorithm, cluster analysis on the point cloud image generated for the feedback signal of the each of the predetermined fields of view to determine whether the at least one tracked object is found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view.
Sanderovich discloses
Step (a2) performing, according to a clustering algorithm, cluster analysis on the point cloud image generated for the feedback signal of the each of the predetermined fields of view to determine whether the at least one tracked object is found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view (Paragraph 0040, "As illustrated, a point cloud, which includes multiple data points, is input to a clustering unit 320 that groups the data points into clusters. As a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, the clustering unit 320 may implement any of a wide variety of clustering algorithms. Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) as an example of a common clustering algorithm", Paragraph 0041, "Depending on desired functionality, the clustering unit 320 may further remove clusters with a small number of data points. Each of the remaining clusters can correspond with a detected object").
Achour and Sanderovich are considered analogous arts as they both concern using point cloud data to detect an object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Sanderovich in order to improve the object detection by including a clustering analysis. It is known in the art that radar point cloud data possesses noise, especially when observing uncontrolled environments. The use of a clustering algorithm is desirable as it enables the ability to remove noise i.e., paragraph 0041, "remove clusters with a small number of data points", which would aid in identifying objects point cloud data paragraph 0046 , “Optimally, each target in the point cloud has a same set of trackable parameters. However, in reality and depending on conditions (e.g., environmental conditions and noise conditions, etc.), some of the parameters may not be tracked”. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Achour with Sanderovich in order to improve the operation of a vehicle via radar target acquisition and tracking.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
The radar scanning system according to claim 7, wherein the radio frequency signal is a frequency-modulated continuous wave signal (Paragraph 0030, "The RD maps may be extracted from Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (“FMCW”) radar pulses and contain both noise and systematic artifacts from Fourier analysis of the pulses."). The combination of Achour and Jiang does not explicitly disclose step (a1) comprises: (all) performing range processing and Doppler processing on an original data block formed by the feedback signal to obtain a processed data block; (a12) performing moving target indication on the processed data block to remove a stationary point in the processed data block; (a13) removing, after step (a12) by using a detection algorithm, a point generated by a noisy background in the processed data block; and (a14) performing, after step (a13), angle processing on the processed data block to generate the point cloud image.
Sanderovich does disclose
Step (a1) comprises: (all) performing range processing and Doppler processing on an original data block formed by the feedback signal to obtain a processed data block (Paragraph 0022, "Further, data obtained from each scan, or series of pulses used to obtain a point cloud for a volume of space, may be referred to herein as a radar “frame” or “image,” and may represent one or more dimensions of data obtained from the scan (e.g., azimuth, elevation, range, and/or Doppler/speed)"); (a12) performing moving target indication on the processed data block to remove a stationary point in the processed data block (Paragraph 0046, "According to some embodiments, a target included in a point cloud can have one or more tracking parameters that relate to a trajectory that the target follows over the course of multiple frames. The trajectory can correspond to a motion of the target relative to the imaging radar (e.g., the target is in motion), a motion of the imaging radar relative to the target (e.g., the target is stationary), or the target and the imaging radar having separate motions. Even when the target is stationary relative to the imaging radar, if the target persistently appears in the point clouds (e.g., as indicated by the values of its parameters), the target also may be tracked."); (a13) removing, after step (a12) by using a detection algorithm, a point generated by a noisy background in the processed data block (Paragraph 0041, "Depending on desired functionality, the clustering unit 320 may further remove clusters with a small number of data points. Each of the remaining clusters can correspond with a detected object."); and (a14) performing, after step (a13), angle processing on the processed data block to generate the point cloud image (Paragraph 0022, "Further, data obtained from each scan, or series of pulses used to obtain a point cloud for a volume of space, may be referred to herein as a radar “frame” or “image,” and may represent one or more dimensions of data obtained from the scan (e.g., azimuth, elevation, range, and/or Doppler/speed)").
Achour and Sanderovich are considered analogous arts as both concern using a point cloud to track an object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Sanderovich to improve object detection via the removal of noise and unnecessary stationary objects. As Sanderovich teaches, radar would be useful for, "alerts, driver assistance," (paragraph 0034) while operating a car. A radar device would then act as "an imaging sensor generating successive point clouds from detected objects, tracking points of interest, or targets, across multiple point clouds/frames" (paragraph 0005). Therefore, it would be obvious to remove a stationary object as a point of interest if the radar is tracking moving targets (e.g., other vehicles) in order to alert the driver while operating the vehicle; this is in contrast to a stationary storefront which the driver would not need an alert for. Naturally, the calculation of the range, velocity, angle etc. helps with the identification of a moving or stationary object, and the removal of the latter. Additionally, it would be obvious to remove noise from point cloud data as it would lead to an improvement in moving target acquisition and tracking “Optimally, each target in the point cloud has a same set of trackable parameters. However, in reality and depending on conditions (e.g., environmental conditions and noise conditions, etc.), some of the parameters may not be tracked” (paragraph 0046). The claimed invention is merely a combination of known techniques, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, rendering claim 8 obvious.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
The scanning method according to claim 11, wherein step (a) comprises: (a1) generating a point cloud image for the feedback signal of each of the predetermined fields of view (Paragraph 0032, “The antenna module 102 then transmits 4D radar data to the data pre-processing module 112 for generating a point cloud that is then sent to the iMTM interface module 104”). The combination of Achour and Jiang does not explicitly disclose step (a2) performing, according to a clustering algorithm, cluster analysis on the point cloud image generated for the feedback signal of the each of the predetermined fields of view to determine whether the at least one tracked object is found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view.
Sanderovich discloses
Step (a2) performing, according to a clustering algorithm, cluster analysis on the point cloud image generated for the feedback signal of the each of the predetermined fields of view to determine whether the at least one tracked object is found through scanning in the predetermined fields of view (Paragraph 0040, "As illustrated, a point cloud, which includes multiple data points, is input to a clustering unit 320 that groups the data points into clusters. As a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, the clustering unit 320 may implement any of a wide variety of clustering algorithms. Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) as an example of a common clustering algorithm", Paragraph 0041, "Depending on desired functionality, the clustering unit 320 may further remove clusters with a small number of data points. Each of the remaining clusters can correspond with a detected object").
Achour and Sanderovich are considered analogous arts as they both concern using point cloud data to detect an object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Sanderovich in order to improve the object detection by including a clustering analysis. It is known in the art that radar point cloud data possesses noise, especially when observing uncontrolled environments. The use of a clustering algorithm is desirable as it enables the ability to remove noise i.e., paragraph 0041, "remove clusters with a small number of data points", which would aid in identifying objects point cloud data paragraph 0046 , “Optimally, each target in the point cloud has a same set of trackable parameters. However, in reality and depending on conditions (e.g., environmental conditions and noise conditions, etc.), some of the parameters may not be tracked”. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Achour with Sanderovich in order to improve the operation of a vehicle via radar target acquisition and tracking.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
A point cloud image generated from the radar’s environment, used for finding targets. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose the scanning method according to claim 17, wherein one is selected from an algorithm group consisting of a free peak grouping algorithm, a density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm, a modified density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm, and a hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm as the clustering algorithm.
Sanderovich discloses
The scanning method according to claim 17, wherein one is selected from an algorithm group consisting of a free peak grouping algorithm, a density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm, a modified density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm, and a hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm as the clustering algorithm. (Paragraph 0040, "As illustrated, a point cloud, which includes multiple data points, is input to a clustering unit 320 that groups the data points into clusters. As a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, the clustering unit 320 may implement any of a wide variety of clustering algorithms. Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) as an example of a common clustering algorithm").
Achour and Sanderovich are considered analogous arts as they both concern object detection through the use of a point cloud. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Sanderovich to add a clustering algorithm and improve noise removal. By using a clustering model, noise can be identified by its small number of data points, which can then be removed, paragraph 0041 "remove clusters with a small number of data points". Without noise targets may be identified more efficiently, paragraph 0046 “Optimally, each target in the point cloud has a same set of trackable parameters. However, in reality and depending on conditions (e.g., environmental conditions and noise conditions, etc.), some of the parameters may not be tracked”. Additionally, a clustering analysis is often performed on point cloud data within the art, making claim 18 obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
The scanning method according to claim 17, wherein the radio frequency signal is a frequency-modulated continuous wave signal (Paragraph 0030, "The RD maps may be extracted from Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (“FMCW”) radar pulses and contain both noise and systematic artifacts from Fourier analysis of the pulses."). The combination of Achour and Jiang does not explicitly disclose step (a1) comprises: (all) performing range processing and Doppler processing on an original data block formed by the feedback signal to obtain a processed data block; (a12) performing moving target indication on the processed data block to remove a stationary point in the processed data block; (a13) removing, after step (a12) by using a detection algorithm, a point generated by a noisy background in the processed data block; and (a14) performing, after step (a13), angle processing on the processed data block to generate the point cloud image.
Sanderovich does disclose
Step (a1) comprises: (all) performing range processing and Doppler processing on an original data block formed by the feedback signal to obtain a processed data block (Paragraph 0022, "Further, data obtained from each scan, or series of pulses used to obtain a point cloud for a volume of space, may be referred to herein as a radar “frame” or “image,” and may represent one or more dimensions of data obtained from the scan (e.g., azimuth, elevation, range, and/or Doppler/speed)"); (a12) performing moving target indication on the processed data block to remove a stationary point in the processed data block (Paragraph 0046, "According to some embodiments, a target included in a point cloud can have one or more tracking parameters that relate to a trajectory that the target follows over the course of multiple frames. The trajectory can correspond to a motion of the target relative to the imaging radar (e.g., the target is in motion), a motion of the imaging radar relative to the target (e.g., the target is stationary), or the target and the imaging radar having separate motions. Even when the target is stationary relative to the imaging radar, if the target persistently appears in the point clouds (e.g., as indicated by the values of its parameters), the target also may be tracked."); (a13) removing, after step (a12) by using a detection algorithm, a point generated by a noisy background in the processed data block (Paragraph 0041, "Depending on desired functionality, the clustering unit 320 may further remove clusters with a small number of data points. Each of the remaining clusters can correspond with a detected object."); and (a14) performing, after step (a13), angle processing on the processed data block to generate the point cloud image (Paragraph 0022, "Further, data obtained from each scan, or series of pulses used to obtain a point cloud for a volume of space, may be referred to herein as a radar “frame” or “image,” and may represent one or more dimensions of data obtained from the scan (e.g., azimuth, elevation, range, and/or Doppler/speed)").
Achour and Sanderovich arts are considered analogous arts as both concern using a point cloud to track an object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Sanderovich to improve object detection via the removal of noise and unnecessary stationary objects. As Sanderovich teaches, radar would be useful for, "alerts, driver assistance," (paragraph 0034) while operating a car. A radar device would then act as "an imaging sensor generating successive point clouds from detected objects, tracking points of interest, or targets, across multiple point clouds/frames" (paragraph 0005). Therefore, it would be obvious to remove a stationary object as a point of interest if the radar is tracking moving targets (e.g., other vehicles) in order to alert the driver while operating the vehicle; this is in contrast to a stationary storefront which the driver would not need an alert for. Naturally, the calculation of the range, velocity, angle etc. helps with the identification of a moving or stationary object, and the removal of the latter. Additionally, it would be obvious to remove noise from point cloud data as it would lead to an improvement in moving target acquisition and tracking “Optimally, each target in the point cloud has a same set of trackable parameters. However, in reality and depending on conditions (e.g., environmental conditions and noise conditions, etc.), some of the parameters may not be tracked” (paragraph 0046). The claimed invention is merely a combination of known techniques, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, rendering claim 19 obvious.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
A point cloud image generated from the radar’s environment, used for finding targets. The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose the scanning method according to claim 19, wherein one is selected from a group consisting of a free constant false alarm rate, a cell-averaging constant false alarm rate, a greatest-of-cell-average constant false alarm rate, a smallest-of-cell-average constant false alarm rate, and an ordered statistic constant false alarm rate as the detection algorithm.
Sanderovich discloses
The scanning method according to claim 19, wherein one is selected from a group consisting of a free constant false alarm rate, a cell-averaging constant false alarm rate, a greatest-of-cell-average constant false alarm rate, a smallest-of-cell-average constant false alarm rate, and an ordered statistic constant false alarm rate as the detection algorithm. (Paragraph 0037, "The processor 230 can also include a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) unit 220 that may compress data received from the BB processing 215 unit and output a point cloud. (Alternative embodiments may perform additional or alternative data compression in a similar manner.) …Further, the processor 230 may include a detection/tracking unit 225 that detects and, optionally, tracks and classifies objects from the point clouds output by the CFAR unit 220." The CFAR unit is receiving data from the BB unit which is "a baseband (BB) processing unit 215, which may perform analog processing and/or fast Fourier transform (FFT) processing to output digital data that includes points. This data may be uncompressed and therefore may include, for example, a row report comprising energy values for all points in a scan").
Achour and Sanderovich are considered analogous arts as they both concern object detection through the use of a point cloud. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with the CFAR from Sanderovich to adapt to changing background noise. As Achour does not specifically disclose a treatment for the noise, a CFAR module would be a clear improvement for object detection as it detects targets with background noise. The CFAR, as described in Sanderovich, does not disclose an initial guess or calculation for the background noise, teaches that there may be additional or alternative compression methods, and is intended to operate with a vehicle. Radar implemented on vehicles have to operate in environments with changing unpredictable variables (e.g., inclement weather) which is adverse to CFAR that require an initial guess on the noise. Therefore, it would be obvious that the CFAR as taught by Sanderovich has some capability to adapt to changing background noise. Additionally, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify an initial guess CFAR into a free CFAR with the predicted result of adapting to variable background noise; this is especially so for Sanderovich which allows for additional/alternative embodiments to its CFAR module. Thus, because Achour needs some type of noise treatment, and Sanderovich teaches a CFAR that operates in a changing environment, it would be obvious to modify Achour with a free CFAR to treat the noise.
26. Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achour (US 20180348343 A1) in view of Jiang (US 10558217 B2) further in view of Wright US 9229102 B1 further in view of Shalita (US 20240319323 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Achour and Jiang discloses
The radar scanning system according to claim 1, wherein the radar unit comprises an antenna unit for radiating the radio frequency signal to free space and receiving the feedback signal (Paragraph 0112, “Some other considerations for antenna applications, such as for radar antennas used in vehicles, include the antenna design, capabilities, and receiver and transmitter configurations”). Achour also discloses generating the radio frequency signal (Paragraph 0029, “A transceiver module 108 coupled to the iMTM antenna structure 106 prepares a signal for transmission”). The combination of Achour and Jiang does not disclose a front end unit, wherein the front end unit is for demodulating and digitizing the feedback signal to obtain a digital feedback signal.
Shalita discloses
A front end unit, wherein the front end unit is for demodulating and digitizing the feedback signal to obtain a digital feedback signal. (Fig 3., element 308 and 304, paragraph 0118, "The radar frontend 304 may include an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) 308 to generate digital radar reception data values based on the analog receive signal. For example, radar frontend 304 may provide the digital radar reception data values to the radar processor 309."; Fig. 8, element 804, paragraph 0176, "In some demonstrative aspects, transmitter 883, and/or receiver 885 may include circuitry; logic; Radio Frequency (RF) elements, circuitry and/or logic; baseband elements, circuitry and/or logic; modulation elements, circuitry and/or logic; demodulation elements, circuitry and/or logic; amplifiers; analog to digital and/or digital to analog converters; filters; and/or the like").
Achour and Shalita are considered analogous arts as they both concern object detection through the use of a point cloud. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Achour with Shalita to extract relevant data from the received radar signal. It is obvious that to extract relevant information from the received signal a demodulation is required. Additionally, the data needs to be digitized to have/use point cloud information. The modules that perform these tasks may be contained within a front end unit, which is the case here. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Achour with the steps of demodulation and digitization in order to utilize a point cloud analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Achour (US 20200241122 A1) discusses scanning a grid like field of view, as shown in figure 1, Paragraph 0017, “The entire FoV or a portion of it can be scanned by a compilation of such transmission beams 118, which may be in successive adjacent scan positions or in a specific or random order” which is relevant for claims 1 and 11.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:40am - 5:40pm ET.
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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648