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 1-30 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made over US 20140062762 A1 to Kurono (‘762) in view of US 20050179579 A1 to Pinder (‘579).
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140062762 A1 to Kurono (‘762) in view of US 20050179579 A1 to Pinder (‘579).
Regarding claim 1,
Kurono (‘762) teaches:
A method of obtaining super resolution in a radar system, ([0046] – “azimuth operation using ESPRIT”) the method comprising:
performing a scan with the radar system, wherein the scan comprises:
transmitting, with the radar system, radar signals using a plurality of beams, wherein the plurality of beams is created using analog beamforming; ([0037-38] – “Thus, with the arrangement in which the transmission antennas 11a to 11d are shifted in the vertical direction, the vertical azimuth of the target can be calculated using a suitable angle estimation method; and with the arrangement in which the receiving antennas 12a to 12d are shifted in the horizontal direction, the horizontal azimuth of the target can be calculated using a suitable angle estimation method.” [0057] – “sequentially changing over the transmission antennas 11a to 11d”) and
receiving, with the radar system, reflected radar signal data, from reflections of the radar signals off of one or more objects; ([0037] – “The receiving antennas 12a to 12d are arranged to be shifted in a horizontal direction, and receive a reflected wave, individually”)
(lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
obtaining the super resolution by processing the offset reflected radar signal data using techniques from a beamspace super resolution estimation. ([0046] – “the horizontal azimuth operation unit 18c performs the azimuth operation using ESPRIT” [0058] – “The vertical azimuth calculation unit 181 can calculate the vertical azimuth which is an azimuth of the target in the direction perpendicular to the ground surface by using the known ESPRIT etc. like the horizontal azimuth operation unit 18c”)
Pinder (‘579) teaches:
determining a speed of the radar system while the scan was performed; (Fig. 5; [0070] – “position and velocity information provided by the Motion Information module 18… Motion Information module 18 can be an Inertial Navigation System (INS) which may preferably use GPS data” [0082] – “motion of the conveyance translates to motion of the antenna elements… conveyance onto which the antenna (and radar) is mounted.” [0085] – “INS 118 provides a set of motion information coordinates (block 220) that are associated with the motion of the conveyance”)
offsetting the reflected radar signal data by the determined speed of the radar system; (Fig. 5[0113] – “a motion information module for providing motion information related to motion of the radar system; a motion compensation beamformer module connected to the match filter module and the motion information module for utilizing the motion information to provide motion-compensated range-pulse-azimuth data; and, a Doppler processing module connected to the motion compensation beamformer module to provide motion-compensated range-Doppler-azimuth data.”)
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 Pinder’s known technique to Kurono’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Kurono teaches a base radar method for horizontal and vertical azimuth detections for use when the radar is in motion, e.g., approaching the target (see Figs. 8, 9) and teaches compensation for relative movement between target and radar, e.g. Fig. 8 and [0072]; (2) Pinder teaches a specific method determining radar receiver motion and compensating for the motion; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more accurate 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).
Regarding claim 2,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beams comprises a plurality of elevation beams, a plurality of azimuth beams, or both. (Figs. 2; [0037-38] – “Thus, with the arrangement in which the transmission antennas 11a to 11d are shifted in the vertical direction, the vertical azimuth of the target can be calculated using a suitable angle estimation method; and with the arrangement in which the receiving antennas 12a to 12d are shifted in the horizontal direction, the horizontal azimuth of the target can be calculated using a suitable angle estimation method.” [0057] – “sequentially changing over the transmission antennas 11a to 11d”)
Regarding claim 3,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the beamspace super resolution estimation comprises beamspace MUSIC or beamspace ESPRIT. ([0058] – “The vertical azimuth calculation unit 181 can calculate the vertical azimuth which is an azimuth of the target in the direction perpendicular to the ground surface by using the known ESPRIT etc. like the horizontal azimuth operation unit 18c”)
Regarding claim 4,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the radar system is located in or on a vehicle, ([abstract] – “in-vehicle radar device”)
Pinder (‘579) teaches:
and wherein the speed of the radar system is determined using one or more speed sensors of the vehicle. (Fig. 5; [0070] – “position and velocity information provided by the Motion Information module 18… Any device that can provide relatively accurate position and velocity information can be used.” [0082] – “motion of the conveyance translates to motion of the antenna elements… conveyance onto which the antenna (and radar) is mounted.” [0085] – “INS 118 provides a set of motion information coordinates (block 220) that are associated with the motion of the conveyance”)
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 Pinder’s known technique to Kurono’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Kurono teaches a base radar method for horizontal and vertical azimuth detections for use when the radar is in motion, e.g., approaching the target (see Figs. 8, 9) and teaches compensation for relative movement between target and radar, e.g. Fig. 8 and [0072]; (2) Pinder teaches a specific method determining radar receiver motion and compensating for the motion; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more accurate 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).
Regarding claim 5,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
processing the offset reflected radar signal data using the beamspace super resolution estimation is performed by an edge computing device of the radar system; (Fig. 1 – signal processor 18; Examiner notes that their broadest reasonable interpretation of an edge computing device includes a signal processor. See instant application specification [0025].) and
data indicative of the super resolution is provided by the radar system to a computer communicatively coupled with the radar system. (Fig. 1; [0065] – “height calculation unit 184 outputs information about the target height to the ECU (not illustrated) for vehicle control which is connected when the distance, relative velocity, the horizontal angle, and the height of the target are calculated.” [0035] – “in-vehicle radar device 10 is connected to an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) for vehicle control and performs transmission and reception of information with the ECUs for vehicle control”)
Regarding claim 6,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the computer comprises a vehicle computer. ([0035] – “in-vehicle radar device 10 is connected to an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) for vehicle control and performs transmission and reception of information with the ECUs for vehicle control”)
Regarding claim 7,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
Pinder (‘579) teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein determining the speed of the radar system comprises obtaining, with the edge computing device, data indicative of the speed of the radar system from the computer or a sensor. (Fig. 5; [0070] – “position and velocity information provided by the Motion Information module 18… Any device that can provide relatively accurate position and velocity information can be used.” [0082] – “motion of the conveyance translates to motion of the antenna elements… conveyance onto which the antenna (and radar) is mounted.” [0085] – “INS 118 provides a set of motion information coordinates (block 220) that are associated with the motion of the conveyance”)
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 Pinder’s known technique to Kurono’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Kurono teaches a base radar method for horizontal and vertical azimuth detections for use when the radar is in motion, e.g., approaching the target (see Figs. 8, 9) and teaches compensation for relative movement between target and radar, e.g. Fig. 8 and [0072]; (2) Pinder teaches a specific method determining radar receiver motion and compensating for the motion; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more accurate 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).
Regarding claim 8,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting a position of each of the one or more objects based on the super resolution. (Fig. 1; [0065] – “height calculation unit 184 outputs information about the target height to the ECU (not illustrated) for vehicle control which is connected when the distance, relative velocity, the horizontal angle, and the height of the target are calculated.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each beam is transmitted in a respective direction that is predetermined and fixed. (Figs. 2, 5; [0037-38] – “transmission antennas 11a to 11d are arranged to be shifted from each other in a vertical direction”)
Regarding claim 10,
Kurono (‘762) in view of Pinder (‘579) teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Kurono (‘762) further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beams comprises fewer than five beams. (Figs. 2, 5 – four beams)
Regarding claim(s) 11-20,
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are system claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1-10, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 11-20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-10.
Regarding claim(s) 21-27,
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are apparatus claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 21-27 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 28-30,
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are non-transitory computer readable medium claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1, 3, and 7, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 21-27 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 7, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20200249341-A1, US-20220065657-A1, US-20220050176-A1, US-12130356-B2, US-11175382-B2, WO-2017032977-A1.
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