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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to claims are not fully overcome. See objection to claim 5 below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not fully overcome. See rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below.
Applicant submits that Iwasa does not teach “synthetic received signal of a virtual transmitting and receiving antenna” as recited by claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Iwasa teaches that in order to perform DOA estimation, direction estimator 214 performs the arrival direction estimation processing by using a plurality of virtual antennas interpolated by interpolation processing performed on the antenna elements configuring the virtual reception array antennas. ([0077] – “uses a method (Direction of Arrival (DOA) estimation) that estimates an arrival angle of the reflected wave according to a signal processing algorithm based on a reception phase difference generated by intervals between the antenna elements.” Figs. 11-12; [0160-178] – “phase difference d(r.sub.PT, n.sub.va.sup.(t),n.sub.va.sup.(r) of the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(t)-th antenna element with respect to the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(r)-th antenna element of the virtual reception array antenna depends on the unit vector (r.sub.PT/|r.sub.PT|) indicating the direction of target P.sub.T existing in a far field and the vector between elements D(n.sub.va.sup.(t), n.sub.va.sup.(r))… direction estimator 214 performs the arrival direction estimation processing by using a plurality of virtual antennas interpolated by interpolation processing performed on the antenna elements configuring the virtual reception array antennas… direction estimator 214 may perform addition averaging processing by using the reception signals of all of the overlapping virtual antenna elements . [0203-204] – “By the beamforming method using virtual reception array antenna VAA1 illustrated in FIG. 11, the directivity pattern illustrated in FIG . 12A is formed in the first axis direction… Radar apparatus 10 may form the beam by applying the weight on the signals received at virtual reception array antenna VAA1… reception signals of VA # 1 to VA # 16”)
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because it appears to recite a typographical error “dissembling.” Examiner will interpret this to mean “disassembling” as recited in claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the term “centrally and symmetrically” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200103495 A1 to Iwasa et al.
Regarding claim 1,
Iwasa teaches:
A method for coherent evaluation of radar signals for a multistatic radar system, the method comprising:
receiving at least one or a plurality of received signals in one or a plurality of signal channels of an antenna arrangement, respectively; ([0077] – “configuration that receives the reflected wave by an array antenna configured with a plurality of antennas (a plurality of antenna elements) in a reception branch”) and
generating a synthetic received signal of a virtual transmitting and receiving antenna using at least one composition model on a basis of the one or the plurality of received signals. ([0077] – “uses a method (Direction of Arrival (DOA) estimation) that estimates an arrival angle of the reflected wave according to a signal processing algorithm based on a reception phase difference generated by intervals between the antenna elements.” Figs. 11-12; [0160-178] – “phase difference d(r.sub.PT, n.sub.va.sup.(t),n.sub.va.sup.(r) of the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(t)-th antenna element with respect to the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(r)-th antenna element of the virtual reception array antenna depends on the unit vector (r.sub.PT/|r.sub.PT|) indicating the direction of target P.sub.T existing in a far field and the vector between elements D(n.sub.va.sup.(t), n.sub.va.sup.(r))… direction estimator 214 performs the arrival direction estimation processing by using a plurality of virtual antennas interpolated by interpolation processing performed on the antenna elements configuring the virtual reception array antennas… direction estimator 214 may perform addition averaging processing by using the reception signals of all of the overlapping virtual antenna elements.” [0203-204] – “By the beamforming method using virtual reception array antenna VAA1 illustrated in FIG. 11, the directivity pattern illustrated in FIG . 12A is formed in the first axis direction… Radar apparatus 10 may form the beam by applying the weight on the signals received at virtual reception array antenna VAA1… reception signals of VA # 1 to VA # 16”)
Regarding claim 2,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising applying a time-division multiplexing method or a propagation time multiplexing method to the at least one or the plurality of received signals such that a count of the signal channels is greater than a count of the transmitting and receiving antennas of the antenna arrangement. ([0078, 94] – “MIMO radar that performs beam scanning by using a plurality of antenna elements not only in the reception branch but also in the transmission branch transmits signals multiplexed by using time division, frequency division, or code division from the plurality of transmission antenna elements, receives signals reflected by peripheral objects at a plurality of reception antenna elements, and separates and receives multiplexed transmission signals from each of the reception signals.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual transmitting and receiving antenna provides a reciprocal radio channel to at least one transmitting and receiving antenna of a further radar unit or radio installation which is away from the antenna arrangement. (Fig. 17; [0229] – “at the position of virtual antenna VA #6 in virtual reception array antenna VAA5, the virtual antenna configured with transmission antenna element Tx #3 and reception antenna element Rx #2 and the virtual antenna configured with transmission antenna element Tx #1 and reception antenna element Rx #3 are formed in an overlapping manner. Therefore, there are two reception signals existing at the position of virtual antenna VA #6.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Iwasa teaches:
A multistatic radar system, comprising:
At least one radar unit with an antenna arrangement, ([abstract] – “radar apparatus capable of expanding the aperture length per antenna element and the aperture length of the virtual reception array antenna. One of a transmission array antenna and a reception array antenna includes a first antenna element group having m-pieces of antenna elements arranged at a first interval D.sub.t along a first axis direction (m is an integer of 1 or larger), and the other one of the transmission array antenna and the reception array antenna includes a second antenna element group having (n+1)-pieces of antenna elements arranged at a second interval D.sub.r(n) along the first axis direction (n is an integer of 1 or larger).”) the radar system configured to:
Receive at least one or a plurality of received signals in one or a plurality of signal channels of an antenna arrangement, respectively; ([0077] – “configuration that receives the reflected wave by an array antenna configured with a plurality of antennas (a plurality of antenna elements) in a reception branch”) and
generate a synthetic received signal of a virtual transmitting and receiving antenna using at least one composition model on a basis of the one or the plurality of received signals. ([0077] – “uses a method (Direction of Arrival (DOA) estimation) that estimates an arrival angle of the reflected wave according to a signal processing algorithm based on a reception phase difference generated by intervals between the antenna elements.” Figs. 11-12; [0160-178] – “phase difference d(r.sub.PT, n.sub.va.sup.(t),n.sub.va.sup.(r) of the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(t)-th antenna element with respect to the reception signal in the n.sub.va.sup.(r)-th antenna element of the virtual reception array antenna depends on the unit vector (r.sub.PT/|r.sub.PT|) indicating the direction of target P.sub.T existing in a far field and the vector between elements D(n.sub.va.sup.(t), n.sub.va.sup.(r))… direction estimator 214 performs the arrival direction estimation processing by using a plurality of virtual antennas interpolated by interpolation processing performed on the antenna elements configuring the virtual reception array antennas… direction estimator 214 may perform addition averaging processing by using the reception signals of all of the overlapping virtual antenna elements.” [0203-204] – “By the beamforming method using virtual reception array antenna VAA1 illustrated in FIG. 11, the directivity pattern illustrated in FIG . 12A is formed in the first axis direction… Radar apparatus 10 may form the beam by applying the weight on the signals received at virtual reception array antenna VAA1… reception signals of VA # 1 to VA # 16”)
Regarding claim 11,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The multistatic radar system of claim 10, wherein the antenna arrangement of the at least one radar unit comprises at least one or a plurality of transmitting and receiving antennas, wherein the at least one or the plurality of transmitting and receiving antennas are arranged on a straight line aligned with the virtual transmitting and receiving antenna. (Fig. 11; e.g., Tx1 and/or Rx1 are arranged on a line with VA1)
Regarding claim 12,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The multistatic radar system of claim 11, wherein the at least one or the plurality of transmitting and receiving antennas and the virtual transmitting and receiving antenna are arranged on an equidistant grid, and
Wherein a distance between respective grid points is an integer multiple of a predetermined distance. (Figs. 20-21)
Regarding claim 13,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The multistatic radar of claim 10, wherein the virtual transmitting and receiving antenna is arranged centrally and symmetrically with respect to the transmitting and receiving antennas of the antenna arrangement. (Fig. 17)
Regarding claim 14,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The multistatic radar system of claim 10, wherein a count of the signal channels is greater than a count of the transmitting and receiving antennas of the antenna arrangement. ([0078, 94] – “MIMO radar that performs beam scanning by using a plurality of antenna elements not only in the reception branch but also in the transmission branch transmits signals multiplexed by using time division, frequency division, or code division from the plurality of transmission antenna elements, receives signals reflected by peripheral objects at a plurality of reception antenna elements, and separates and receives multiplexed transmission signals from each of the reception signals.”)
Regarding claim 15,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa further teaches:
The multistatic radar system of claim 10, wherein the at least one radar unit and the antenna arrangement are mechanically coupled to or included as a portion of a vehicle. ([0084] – “MIMO radar used for in-vehicle application” [0364] – “radar apparatuses 10, 10a, and 10b can be loaded on moving objects such as vehicles (”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103495 A1 to Iwasa et al in view of US 20210190912 A1 to Feng et al.
Regarding claim 7,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
US 20210190912 A1 to Feng teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising disassembling the at least one or the plurality of received signals into principal components using a principal component analysis (PCA) technique. (Fig. 2; [0017] – “performing dimension reduction on the time-frequency domain data of each target includes performing dimension reduction on the time-frequency domain data of each target based on a principal component analysis (PCA) algorithm.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sumi’s known technique to Iwasa’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lynch teaches a virtual reception array and processing its received signals to determine detected target information; (2) Sumi teaches a specific technique of processing received signals using PCA technique in order to determine detected target information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103495 A1 to Iwasa et al in view of US 20190369207 A1 to Sanada.
Regarding claim 8,
Iwasa teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Iwasa does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
US 20190369207 A1 to Sanada teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising analyzing the at least one or the plurality of received signals using one of: an Independent-Component-Analysis, a Multiple- Signal-Classification, a Estimation-of-Signal-Parameters-via-Rational-Invariance-Techniques, or an Iterative-Sparse-Asymptotic-Minimum-Variance technique. ([0058] – “For example, when the number of the receiving antenna 31 configured by the second unit antenna 10B is two, a radar device capable of estimating an azimuth of a target by MUSIC (Multiple Signal Classification), ESPRIT (Estimation of Signal Parameters via Rotational Invariance Techniques) and the like is obtained.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sanada’s known technique to Iwasa’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lynch teaches a virtual reception array and processing its received signals to determine detected target information; (2) Sanada teaches a specific technique of processing received signals using MUSIC or ESPRIT for received signal processing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if claim 5 is rewritten to correct typographical error objection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (US 20200103495 A1 to Iwasa et al; US 20210190912 A1 to Feng et al; US 20190369207 A1 to Sanada) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 3-6, 16. See analysis regarding claim 3 below. Claims 4-6, 16 indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
disassembling the at least one or the plurality of received signals into propagation components, the propagation components comprising at least propagation time and Doppler components.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190212411 A1 to Kang teaches a received signal DOA estimation method using generation of virtual received signals.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648