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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 10-11) about the objection to the Drawing Fig.2 and Fig.3, the objection has been overcome by the REPLACEMENT SHEET filed on 10/29/2025.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 11-12) about the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 16, Examiner disagrees because Haney (‘411) discloses the newly added limitations. Specifically, Haney (‘411) discloses that (see words with underline)
determining a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval {Fig.1; Fig.6; Fig.7; [0018] lines 1-4 (detecting the point in the scan at which the reflector is in alignment azimuthally with the beam of radar waves to set the azimuth alignment of the scanned beam.); [0032] lines 4-5 (The beam 14 can be scanned from the left to the right as indicated by arrow 18.); [0038] lines 2-3 (radar beam with a single lobe 35. Here, three diagonally arranged radar reflectors 37, 38, 39), 6-7 (is scanned at the elevation of the middle row 41, as shown by the arrow “C”.); [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t)); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 and [0032] lines 4-5 for “during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”. “t” axis in Fig.7 corresponds to scan angle based on Fig.6. Fig.7 shows S(t) change over time, which corresponds to scan angle.};
comparing the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit {Fig.7 item 49; [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t))}; and
determining that the radar transceiver is functioning when the following condition is met:
the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval.
{Fig.1; Fig.7; [0039] lines 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t)), 5-10 (When the elevation of the scanned radar beam 35 is equal to that of the middle reflector 38, then both minor peaks 47, 48 will be at the same level 49. This gives a sensitive measure that the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set at the elevation of the middle reflector 38); Examiner’s note: “the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set” for “the radar transceiver is functioning”}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger et al. (US 10,585,170, hereafter Hellinger) in view of Haney et al. (US 2003/0090411, hereafter Haney).
Regarding claim 1, Hellinger (‘170) discloses that A method for controlling a vehicle radar transceiver {col.1 lines 58-60 (a method for determining misalignment of a radar sensor unit mounted to a vehicle)}, where the method comprises:
transmitting a radar signal {Fig.4 item 52 (transmit radar wave)};
collecting and storing target data comprising a received detected signal level obtained from reflected radar signals that have been reflected by at least one target object during a measurement angular interval {Fig.1 item 28 (memory); Fig.2 for “at least one target object”; Fig.4 items 54 (receive reflected radar wave), 56 (determine presence , location and distance of targets), 62 (store elevation adjusting radar sensor unit operation); col.6 lines 5-7 (receives radar waves, reflected by the pattern of targets 41-43 and detects the locations and distances), 20-21 (memory of the diagnostic device 36 to obtain misalignment values for the radar sensor unit 12), 54-55 (the elevation and azimuth values are stored as adjustment values in the memory 28); Examiner’s note: “determine presence” is for “received detected signal level”. “the pattern of targets 41-43” is for “during a measurement angular interval”};
However, Hellinger (‘170) does not explicitly disclose “determining a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”, “comparing the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit”, and “determining that the radar transceiver is functioning when the following condition is met: the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”. In the same field of endeavor, Haney (‘411) discloses that
determining a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval {Fig.1; Fig.6; Fig.7; [0018] lines 1-4 (detecting the point in the scan at which the reflector is in alignment azimuthally with the beam of radar waves to set the azimuth alignment of the scanned beam.); [0032] lines 4-5 (The beam 14 can be scanned from the left to the right as indicated by arrow 18.); [0038] lines 2-3 (radar beam with a single lobe 35. Here, three diagonally arranged radar reflectors 37, 38, 39), 6-7 (is scanned at the elevation of the middle row 41, as shown by the arrow “C”.); [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t)); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 and [0032] lines 4-5 for “during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”. “t” axis in Fig.7 corresponds to scan angle based on Fig.6. Fig.7 shows S(t) change over time, which corresponds to scan angle.};
comparing the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit {Fig.7 item 49; [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t))}; and
determining that the radar transceiver is functioning when the following condition is met:
the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval.
{Fig.1; Fig.7; [0039] lines 5-10 (When the elevation of the scanned radar beam 35 is equal to that of the middle reflector 38, then both minor peaks 47, 48 will be at the same level 49. This gives a sensitive measure that the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set at the elevation of the middle reflector 38); Examiner’s note: “the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set” for “the radar transceiver is functioning”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hellinger (‘170) with the teachings of Haney (‘411) {match received radar signal pattern with known reflector patterns based on known signal amplitude pattern for the known reflector patterns for alignment identification using a threshold} to match received radar signal pattern with known reflector patterns based on known signal amplitude pattern for the known reflector patterns for alignment identification using a threshold. Doing so would provide a quick and accurate alignment without human error, as recognized by Haney (‘411) {[0003] lines 5-7 (The elevation needs to be aligned to an accuracy of about ±0.75. Such manual alignment is time consuming and prone to human error)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) discloses that in the method,
there are two or more of the target objects in one or more corresponding fixed positions {see Hellinger (‘170) Fig.2; Fig.3; col.2 lines 51 (plurality of targets defining a pattern), 55-57 (the alignment apparatus is configured to be disposed at a predetermined position at a test station)}.
Regarding claim 9, Hellinger (‘170), as modified above, discloses that A measuring system for controlling a vehicle radar transceiver {Fig.1 items 14 (radar transmitter), 16 (radar receiver); col.2 lines 48-50 (a system for determining misalignment and calibrating a radar sensor unit mounted to a vehicle)}, the measuring system comprising a radar system that in turn comprises the radar transceiver and a control unit { Fig.1 items 14 (radar transmitter), 16 (radar receiver), 24 (electronic control unit)}, the measuring system further comprising at least one target object {Fig.2 items 41, 42, 43; Fig.3 items 41, 42, 43; col.4 lines 44-45 (a first target 41, a second target 42, and a third target 43)}, where the measuring system is adapted to:
collect and store target data comprising a received detected signal level obtained from reflected radar signals that have been reflected by the target object during a measurement angular interval; and to
determine a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval;
compare the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit; and
determine that the radar transceiver is functioning when the following condition is met:
the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 9, the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) discloses that in the measuring system,
the measuring system further comprises an external computer device that is connected to the control unit {see Hellinger (‘170) Fig.1 item 36 (diagnostic device) connects to item 24 (electronic control unit)},
where the computer device is adapted to perform an analysis for determining whether at least one of the conditions is met {see Hellinger (‘170) col.5 lines 57-59 (the diagnostic device 36 prompts the ECU 24 of the radar sensor unit 12 to execute a calibration program for determining misalignment of the radar sensor unit)}.
Claims (2, 4, 6-7) and (10, 12, 14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, above, and further in view of Schirmer et al. (US 6,363,619, hereafter Schirmer).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) do not explicitly disclose “the method further comprises moving the target object along a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object, during the measurement angular interval”. In the same field of endeavor, Schirmer (‘619) discloses that in the method,
the method further comprises moving the target object along a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object, during the measurement angular interval {Fig.1; Fig.4 item 41; col.4 lines 31-32 (a target object 41 is attached, rotatably by way of an extension arm 44, on a holding apparatus 42.); Examiner’s note: distance between items 10 and 12 in Fig.1 and rotation in Fig.4 for “a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) with the teachings of Schirmer (‘619) {adjust target location using an extension arm} to adjust target location using an extension arm. Doing so would shift target object to alternative positions as needed for the adjustment process so that the adjustment can be performed in horizontal direction and in vertical direction, as recognized by Schirmer (‘619) {col.3 lines 3-4 (shifted alternative positions of target object 12 that are needed for the adjustment process); col.7 lines 56-58 (target object 41 can be rotated into various defined positions 43, for a vertical adjustment of distance Sensor); col.8 lines 6-7 (can also be used for horizontal adjustment)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-2, Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) do not disclose “monitoring an azimuth angle of the target object over time as the target object is moved around the measurement arc, and comparing the monitored azimuth angle to an expected azimuth angle trajectory”. In the same field of endeavor, Schirmer (‘619) discloses that in the method, the method further comprises the steps of:
monitoring an azimuth angle of the target object over time as the target object is moved around the measurement arc { Fig.4 (azimuth angle), target moving; Fig.8 item 802 (
PNG
media_image1.png
31
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); col.6 line 1 (Fig.8, process sequence); col.7 lines 56-57 (target object 41 can be rotated into various defined positions 43.); col.8 line 3 (method is then once again repeated in a loop), 65 (monitoring a position of the target object)}, and
comparing the monitored azimuth angle to an expected azimuth angle trajectory {Fig.4 (azimuth angle); Fig.8 item 802 (
PNG
media_image1.png
31
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); col.6 lines 11-14 (the angular position (φactual of target object 12 determined by distance sensor 10 is compared to an angular position φreference that is obtained from the known position of motor vehicle)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) with the teachings of Schirmer (‘619) {adjust target location using an extension arm to change target position and monitor the change as well as measured results} to adjust target location using an extension arm to change target position and monitor the change as well as measured results. Doing so would shift target object to alternative positions as needed for adjustment of the alignment of the beam characteristic of the distance sensor so that the adjustment can be performed in horizontal direction and in vertical direction, as recognized by Schirmer (‘619) {col.1 lines 55-56 (adjustment of the alignment of the beam characteristic of the distance sensor); col.3 lines 3-4 (shifted alternative positions of target object 12 that are needed for the adjustment process); col.7 lines 56-58 (target object 41 can be rotated into various defined positions 43, for a vertical adjustment of distance Sensor); col.8 lines 6-7 (can also be used for horizontal adjustment)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) do not explicitly disclose “a metal pipe or a metal rod is used as the target object”. In the same field of endeavor, Schirmer (‘619) discloses that in the method,
a metal pipe or a metal rod is used as the target object {col.5 lines 3-4 (metal, cylindrically curved concave reflector)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) with the teachings of Schirmer (‘619) {use metal plate in cylindrically curved concave reflector} to use metal plate in cylindrically curved concave reflector. Doing so would provide a suitable reflector for reflecting the particular wave type of the distance sensor that is to be adjusted, as recognized by Schirmer (‘619) {col.4 lines 42-44 (reflector 52, suitable for reflecting the particular wave type of the distance sensor that is to be adjusted)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) do not disclose “the target object is cylindrical and vertically arranged on a wheeled carriage”. In the same field of endeavor, Schirmer (‘619) discloses that in the method,
the target object is cylindrical and vertically arranged on a wheeled carriage {Fig.2b; col.5 line 4 (cylindrically curved concave reflector)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) with the teachings of Schirmer (‘619) {use metal plate in cylindrically curved concave reflector on movable wheels} to use metal plate in cylindrically curved concave reflector on movable wheels. Doing so would shift target object to alternative positions as needed for adjustment of the alignment of the beam characteristic of the distance sensor so that the adjustment can be performed in horizontal direction and in vertical direction, as recognized by Schirmer (‘619) {col.1 lines 55-56 (adjustment of the alignment of the beam characteristic of the distance sensor); col.3 lines 3-4 (shifted alternative positions of target object 12 that are needed for the adjustment process); col.7 lines 56-58 (target object 41 can be rotated into various defined positions 43, for a vertical adjustment of distance Sensor); col.8 lines 6-7 (can also be used for horizontal adjustment)}.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2 and 4, respectively. Accordingly, claims 10 and 12 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2 and 4, respectively, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger (‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) as applied to claims 2, 10, and 16, respectively, and further in view of Won et al. (KR 20180072312, hereafter Won).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, Hellinger (‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) do not explicitly disclose “a wire is used for maintaining a distance between the radar transceiver and the target object”. In the same field of endeavor, Won (‘312) discloses that in the method,
a wire is used for maintaining a distance between the radar transceiver and the target object {Fig.1 (radar); Fig.5 item 150; page 3 lines 25-26 (The end of the distance maintaining arm 150 comes into contact with the front wheel of the vehicle to keep the distance from the vehicle to the grid pattern plate 120 / marker-corner reflector)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) with the teachings of Won (‘312) {keep distance between radar and reflector using an arm } to keep distance between radar and reflector using an arm. Doing so would accurately position alignment correction marker and the corner reflector are at a predetermined position so as to perform simple and quick correction to align radar sensor, as recognized by Won (‘312) {page 1 abstract line 5 (performing simple and quick correction); page 2 lines 18-21 (the radar, are aligned, the alignment correction marker and the corner reflector are accurately positioned at a predetermined position)}.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger(‘170) in view of Haney (‘411) and Schirmer (‘619) .
Regarding claim 16, Hellinger(‘170) discloses that A method for controlling a vehicle radar transceiver {col.1 lines 58-60 (a method for determining misalignment of a radar sensor unit mounted to a vehicle)}, where the method comprises:
transmitting a radar signal {Fig.4 item 52 (transmit radar wave)};
collecting and storing target data comprising a received detected signal level obtained from reflected radar signals that have been reflected by at least one target object during a measurement angular interval {Fig.1 item 28 (memory); Fig.2 for “at least one target object”; Fig.4 items 54 (receive reflected radar wave), 56 (determine presence , location and distance of targets), 62 (store elevation adjusting radar sensor unit operation); col.6 lines 5-7 (receives radar waves, reflected by the pattern of targets 41-43 and detects the locations and distances), 20-21 (memory of the diagnostic device 36 to obtain misalignment values for the radar sensor unit 12), 54-55 (the elevation and azimuth values are stored as adjustment values in the memory 28); Examiner’s note: “determine presence” is for “received detected signal level”. “the pattern of targets 41-43” is for “during a measurement angular interval”};
.
However, Hellinger (‘170) does not explicitly disclose “determining a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”, “comparing the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit”, “moving the target object along a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object, during the measurement angular interval”, and “determining that the radar transceiver is functioning when at least one of the following conditions is met: the detected signal level exceeds a minimum signal level during an angular interval of the measurement angular interval; and the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”. In the same field of endeavor, Haney (‘411) discloses that
determining a change of the detected signal level during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval {Fig.1; Fig.6; Fig.7; [0018] lines 1-4 (detecting the point in the scan at which the reflector is in alignment azimuthally with the beam of radar waves to set the azimuth alignment of the scanned beam.); [0032] lines 4-5 (The beam 14 can be scanned from the left to the right as indicated by arrow 18.); [0038] lines 2-3 (radar beam with a single lobe 35. Here, three diagonally arranged radar reflectors 37, 38, 39), 6-7 (is scanned at the elevation of the middle row 41, as shown by the arrow “C”.); [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t)); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 and [0032] lines 4-5 for “during a certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”. “t” axis in Fig.7 corresponds to scan angle based on Fig.6. Fig.7 shows S(t) change over time, which corresponds to scan angle.};
comparing the change of the detected signal level to a certain limit {Fig.7 item 49; [0039] line 1 (Fig.7, signal S(t))};
moving the target object , during the measurement angular interval {[0033] lines 4-5 (radar reflectors 7, 8, 9 are moved horizontally relative to one another)}; and
determining that the radar transceiver is functioning when at least one of the following conditions is met:
the detected signal level exceeds a minimum signal level during an angular interval of the measurement angular interval; and
the change of the detected signal level falls below the certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval.
{Fig.1; Fig.7 item C above the “t” axis at a S level for “the detected signal level exceeds a minimum signal level during an angular interval of the measurement angular interval” and items 47-48 for “the change of the detected signal level falls below a certain limit during the certain angular interval of the measurement angular interval”; [0039] lines 5-10 (When the elevation of the scanned radar beam 35 is equal to that of the middle reflector 38, then both minor peaks 47, 48 will be at the same level 49. This gives a sensitive measure that the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set at the elevation of the middle reflector 38); Examiner’s note: “the elevation of the radar beam 35 is correctly set” for “the radar transceiver is functioning”}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hellinger (‘170) with the teachings of Haney (‘411) {match received radar signal pattern with known reflector patterns based on known signal amplitude pattern for the known reflector patterns for alignment identification using a threshold} to match received radar signal pattern with known reflector patterns based on known signal amplitude pattern for the known reflector patterns for alignment identification using a threshold. Doing so would provide a quick and accurate alignment without human error, as recognized by Haney (‘411) {[0003] lines 5-7 (The elevation needs to be aligned to an accuracy of about ±0.75. Such manual alignment is time consuming and prone to human error)}.
However, Haney (‘411) does not explicitly disclose “moving the target object along a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object, during the measurement angular interval”. In the same field of endeavor, Schirmer (‘619) discloses that
moving the target object along a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object, during the measurement angular interval {Fig.1; Fig.4 item 41; col.4 lines 31-32 (a target object 41 is attached, rotatably by way of an extension arm 44, on a holding apparatus 42.); Examiner’s note: distance between items 10 and 12 in Fig.1 and rotation in Fig.4 for “a measurement arc having a radius that that extends between the radar transceiver and the target object”};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170) and Haney (‘411) with the teachings of Schirmer (‘619) {adjust target location using an extension arm} to adjust target location using an extension arm. Doing so would shift target object to alternative positions as needed for the adjustment process so that the adjustment can be performed in horizontal direction and in vertical direction, as recognized by Schirmer (‘619) {col.3 lines 3-4 (shifted alternative positions of target object 12 that are needed for the adjustment process); col.7 lines 56-58 (target object 41 can be rotated into various defined positions 43, for a vertical adjustment of distance Sensor); col.8 lines 6-7 (can also be used for horizontal adjustment)}.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger(‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chazelle et al. (US 5,495,249, hereafter Chazelle).
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 16, Hellinger(‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) do not explicitly disclose “the minimum signal level varies as a function of an azimuth angle”. In the same field of endeavor, Chazelle(‘249) discloses that
the minimum signal level varies as a function of an azimuth angle {col.12 lines 55-59 (The detection is performed by contrasting with the ground "clutter', contrast detection is undertaken with a variable threshold, the value of which is stored as a function of range and azimuth.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hellinger (‘170), Haney (‘411), and Schirmer (‘619) with the teachings of Chazelle(‘249) {use variable threshold as function of azimuth in detection} to use variable threshold as function of azimuth in detection. Doing so would take account actual received power into detection threshold because actual received power is based on the range, azimuth and speed, as recognized by Chazelle(‘249) {col.7 lines 22-23 (The magnitude of the side lobes precludes the detection of obstacles with large RCS in azimuth); col.16 lines 3-5 (in the radar proposed the actual separating power depends on the range, azimuth and speed)}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648