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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant proports that the amended claims 1-18 overcome the previous 101 rejection. The Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection. As seen in the 101 rejection below the amended claims recite either subject matter directed to a judicial exception or mere data gathering which is extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The amended subject matter does not amount to significantly more. Further, in their remarks filed 11/19/2025, the Applicant does not contest the previous 101 rejection of claims 1-18 nor does the applicant explain their position that the amendments to claims 1 and 17 and the addition of new claims 19 and 20 overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on ROSU and the rejection of dependent claims under 35, U.S.C 103, applicant states that the prior art does not disclose the new amended limitations “wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection,” and “in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity, and wherein, in the determination of the noise level, a magnitude of a number of cells in the selection of the neighboring cells is reduced in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells” as recited in amended claim 1, 17 and 20.
However, The Applicant never explains why they believe these features are not taught by the prior art. The applicant specifically provides support from their specification for the amendment to claims 1 and 17 , but does not further support the arguments. The above states simply say that the prior art does not teach these limitations and fails to support the position of the Applicant with any evidence of argument to support their position. The Examiner maintains that the citations as well as other portions of the figures and specification support the rejection of the limitations above. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
As seen in the rejection below Rosu discloses the method wherein a noise level is estimated and not feeding the estimated noise value back to the detection process (FIG.14, Steps.1411 & 1414, Rosu). Rosu further discloses a cell examination window including one ore more protective cells adjacent to an examined cell ([0023], Rosu). Additionally, Melvin discloses replacing excluded neighboring cells with an existing estimated noise value and reducing the magnitude of a number of cells in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells ([Col.13, ll.53-56] & [Col.11, ll.23-26], Melvin). The Applicant has not explained why the prior art as stated above does not meet the claimed limitations. The Examiner maintains the 102 and 103 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method for estimating noise in a radar sensor. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 17 (and its dependents) recites a radar system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 20 (and its dependents) recites a method for estimating noise in a radar sensor. The claim therefore recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 17 recites,
which generates a digital spectrum which indicates a received signal strength as a function of at least one discrete locating parameter
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of generating a digital spectrum. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
carrying out, on the spectrum, a detection to decide whether an examined cell in a locating space contains a genuine radar target or just noise
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of target detection (see [Page.8, ll.10-12 Specification]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
and determining a noise level based on the signal strengths in a selection of neighboring cells in the vicinity of the examined cell
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a noise level. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 2 recites,
wherein the detection is a CFAR detection.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of Constant False Alarm Rate Detection. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 7 recites,
wherein the CFAR detection is carried out in accordance with an OS-CFAR algorithm
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of OS-CFAR algorithm. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 8 recites,
in which the CFAR detection is carried out in accordance with a rank-only OS-CFAR algorithm
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of a rank only OS-CFAR algorithm. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 13 recites,
wherein estimated values for the noise level of successive cells are calculated iteratively.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of successive noise level calculations. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 14 recites,
wherein N is a power of two
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of a window size formula. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 15 recites,
The method as recited in claim 9, wherein the window size N varies depending on a current position of the window.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of a variable window size formula. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 18 recites,
wherein the evaluation system includes a noise estimator
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of noise estimation. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 20 recites,
which generates a digital spectrum which indicates a received signal strength as a function of at least one discrete locating parameter,
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of generating a digital spectrum. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
the method comprising: carrying out, on the spectrum, a detection to decide whether an examined cell in a locating space contains a genuine radar target or just noise;
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of target detection (see [Page.8, ll.10-12 Specification]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
and determining a noise level based on the signal strengths in a selection of neighboring cells in the vicinity of the examined cell
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a noise level. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
in the determination of the noise level, a magnitude of a number of cells in the selection of the neighboring cells is reduced in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of a window size formula. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 17 also recites,
wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level
The order data is processed is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells.
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection
Excluding data from a detection process is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
“In the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity.” Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
“In the determination of the noise level, a magnitude of a number of cells in the selection of the neighboring cells is reduced in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells.” Adjusting a window size is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
“In the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with signal values for nearby cells from an enlarged neighborhood.” Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 also recites,
“Wherein the locating space is at least two-dimensional.” Structuring data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 also recites,
“A window that has a size of N cells of the locating space is shifted over a matrix of the cells of the locating space and, at each position of the window, a cell contained in the window is the examined cell and remaining cells are the neighboring cells.” Iterative windowing is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 also recites,
“Wherein the window is one-dimensional.” Structuring data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 also recites,
“The examined cell is located at one end of the window and, the window is moved over the cell matrix such that the end at which the examined cell is located traverses each cell of the cell matrix before any other part of the window.” Iterative windowing is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
“The examined call is located in a corner of the window, and the window is moved over the cell matrix such that the corner at which the examined cell is located traverses each cell of the cell matrix before any other part of the window.” Iterative windowing is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 16 also recites,
“Wherein individual cells are hidden within the window such that they do not contribute to the noise estimation.” Masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 19 also recites,
“in the detection, a window used for examining each cell includes one or more protective cells adjacent to the examined cell.” Data windowing is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 20 also recites,
wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level
The order data is processed is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells.
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection
Excluding data from a detection process is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein, in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 also recites,
wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level
The order data is processed is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells.
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 13 also recites,
wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level
The order data is processed is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells.
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 13 further recites,
and an electronic evaluation system
Merely executing computer-readable instruction on a hardware processor is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 20 also recites,
wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level
The order data is processed is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells.
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection
Excluding data from a detection process is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein, in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity
Data masking is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rosu(US20220120855A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosu discloses
A method for estimating noise in a radar sensor, which generates a digital spectrum which indicates a received signal strength as a function of at least one discrete locating parameter (“ Range-Doppler-Matrix”[0022]), the method comprising: carrying out, on the spectrum, a detection to decide whether an examined cell in a locating space contains a genuine radar target or just noise (“(CFAR) detection”[0023]); and determining a noise level based on the signal strengths in a selection of neighboring cells in the vicinity of the examined cell (“In most CFAR detection schemes, the threshold level is calculated by estimating the level of the noise floor around the cell under test (CUT).”[0023]); wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level (FIG.6, Parts 602, 610]), and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells (“ignoring the “guard cells” immediately adjacent to the CUT to avoid corrupting this estimate with power from the CUT itself.”[0023]), wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection (FIG.14, Steps.1411 & 1414).
Regarding claim 2, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the detection is a CFAR detection (“(CFAR) detection”[0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein, in the determination of the noise level, a magnitude of a number of cells in the selection of the neighboring cells is reduced in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells (“with M windows, the first window takes N samples out of the total of Ns” [0074])
Regarding claim 6, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the locating space is at least two-dimensional (“ Range-Doppler-Matrix”[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the CFAR detection is carried out in accordance with an OS-CFAR algorithm (“ By using an OS-CFAR process”[0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein, for the determination of the noise level, a window that has a size of N cells of the locating space is shifted over a matrix of the cells of the locating space and (“window consisting of N samples”[0036]), at each position of the window, a cell contained in the window is the examined cell and remaining cells are the neighboring cells (“ In most CFAR detection schemes, the threshold level is calculated by estimating the level of the noise floor around the cell under test (CUT). This can be found by taking a block of cells around the CUT”[0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 9, wherein the window is one-dimensional (“ the n-sized window”[0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 9, wherein estimated values for the noise level of successive cells are calculated iteratively (“then the next cell under test is selected (step 1414) and the processing of steps 1410-1412 is iteratively repeated.”[0092]).
Regarding claim 17, Rosu discloses
A radar system, comprising: a radar sensor (“A radar system”[0021] & Fig.2 Part 20); and an electronic evaluation system (Fig.2 Part 25); wherein the radar sensor is configured to generate a digital spectrum which indicates a received signal strength as a function of at least one discrete locating parameter (“ Range-Doppler-Matrix”[0022]); and wherein the electronic evaluation system is configured to: carry out, on the spectrum, a detection to decide whether an examined cell in a locating space contains a genuine radar target or just noise (“(CFAR) detection”[0023]); and determine a noise level based on the signal strengths in a selection of neighboring cells in the vicinity of the examined cell(“In most CFAR detection schemes, the threshold level is calculated by estimating the level of the noise floor around the cell under test (CUT).”[0023]); wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level(FIG.6, Parts 602, 610]), and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells (“ignoring the “guard cells” immediately adjacent to the CUT to avoid corrupting this estimate with power from the CUT itself.”[0023]) wherein an estimated noise level is not fed back to the detection (FIG.14, Steps.1411 & 1414).
Regarding claim 19, Rosu discloses
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein, in the detection, a window used for examining each cell includes one or more protective cells adjacent to the examined cell (“ignoring the “guard cells” immediately adjacent to the CUT to avoid corrupting this estimate with power from the CUT itself.”[0023]).
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.
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 3, 5, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu(US20220120855A1) in view of Melvin(US5706013A).
Regarding claim 3, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rosu does not appear to set forth the method of replacing excluded neighboring cells with existing estimated noise values. Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. Melvin discloses the method wherein, in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity (“ filter weight controller 140 automatically excludes these range cells from covariance matrix estimation, replacing them with other homogeneous auxiliary signals”[Col.13, ll.53-56] of Melvin)
Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Melvin to incorporate the features replacing excluded neighboring cells with existing estimated noise values so as to gain the advantage of reducing distortion in the noise estimation [Page 3, lines 17-24, specification]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5 , Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Rosu does not appear to set forth the method of replacing excluded neighboring cells with existing estimated noise values from an extended neighborhood. Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. Melvin discloses the method wherein, in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with signal values for nearby cells from an enlarged neighborhood (“ filter weight controller 140 automatically excludes these range cells from covariance matrix estimation, replacing them with other homogeneous auxiliary signals”[Col.13, ll.53-56] of Melvin).
Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Melvin to incorporate the features replacing excluded neighboring cells with existing estimated noise values from an extended neighborhood so as to gain the advantage of reducing distortion in the noise estimation [Page 3, lines 17-24, specification]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16 , Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Rosu does not appear to disclose hiding cells within a window. Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. Melvin discloses the method wherein, wherein individual cells are hidden within the window such that they do not contribute to the noise estimation (“ filter weight controller 140 automatically excludes these range cells from covariance matrix estimation, replacing them with other homogeneous auxiliary signals”[Col.13, ll.53-56] of Melvin).
Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Melvin to incorporate the features hiding cells within a window so as to gain the advantage of reducing distortion in the noise estimation [Page 3, lines 17-24, specification]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, Rosu discloses
A method for estimating noise in a radar sensor, which generates a digital spectrum which indicates a received signal strength as a function of at least one discrete locating parameter(“ Range-Doppler-Matrix”[0022]), the method comprising: carrying out, on the spectrum, a detection to decide whether an examined cell in a locating space contains a genuine radar target or just noise(“(CFAR) detection”[0023]); and determining a noise level based on the signal strengths in a selection of neighboring cells in the vicinity of the examined cell (“In most CFAR detection schemes, the threshold level is calculated by estimating the level of the noise floor around the cell under test (CUT).”[0023]); wherein the detection precedes the determination of the noise level(FIG.6, Parts 602, 610]),and cells identified in the detection as target cells are excluded from the selection of the neighboring cells (“ignoring the “guard cells” immediately adjacent to the CUT to avoid corrupting this estimate with power from the CUT itself.”[0023]).
Rosu discloses excluded neighboring cells, but does not explicitly disclose that the cells are replaced with an existing estimated noise value. Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. Melvin discloses wherein, in the determination of the noise level, the signal strengths of the excluded neighboring cells are each replaced with an existing estimated noise value for a cell in a vicinity (“ filter weight controller 140 automatically excludes these range cells from covariance matrix estimation, replacing them with other homogeneous auxiliary signals”[Col.13, ll.53-56] of Melvin) and wherein, in the determination of the noise level, a magnitude of a number of cells in the selection of the neighboring cells is reduced in accordance with a number of excluded neighboring cells (“The rank number corresponding to this point of significant change in slope, ir.sub.HI, passes as signal 292, to a guard cell counter 310 and a K.sub.p window counter 320”[Col.11, ll.23-26]).
Melvin teaches in the same field of endeavor of noise level determination. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Melvin to incorporate the features hiding cells within a window so as to gain the advantage of reducing distortion in the noise estimation [Page 3, lines 17-24, specification]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu(US20220120855A1) in view of Engelsman(US4958141A).
Regarding claim 8, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Rosu does not appear to set forth rank-only OS-CFAR. Engelsman teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. Engelsman discloses the method wherein, in which the CFAR detection is carried out in accordance with a rank-only OS-CFAR algorithm (“outputs only the rank of each member in a set of numbers” [col.2, ll.13-14] of Engelsman).
Engelsman teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Engelsman to incorporate the features of rank-only OS-CFAR so as to gain the advantage of increasing the efficiency of the OS-CFAR implementation. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu(US20220120855A1) in view of Li(CN113406625A).
Regarding claim 11, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Rosu does not appear to set forth moving a one dimensional window over a cell matrix. Li teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. Li discloses the method wherein, the window is one-dimensional, the examined cell is located at one end of the window and, the window is moved over the cell matrix such that the end at which the examined cell is located traverses each cell of the cell matrix before any other part of the window (“A sliding window consisting of a target window, a protection window and a background window is set, and the pixels in the entire SAR image are traversed using the sliding window.” [n0003] of Li).
Li teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Li to incorporate the features of moving the one dimensional window over the cell matrix so as to gain the advantage of improving CFAR computational efficiency [0031, Li] . Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Does not appear to set forth moving a multi-dimensional window over a cell matrix. Li teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. Li discloses the method wherein, wherein the window is a multi-dimensional window, the examined call is located in a corner of the window, and the window is moved over the cell matrix such that the corner at which the examined cell is located traverses each cell of the cell matrix before any other part of the window (“A sliding window consisting of a target window, a protection window and a background window is set, and the pixels in the entire SAR image are traversed using the sliding window.” [n0003] of Li).
Li teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Li to incorporate the features of moving the multi-dimensional window over the cell matrix so as to gain the advantage of improving CFAR computational efficiency [0031, Li] . Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu(US20220120855A1) in view of Cantwell(US4360811A).
Regarding claim 14, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Rosu does not appear to set forth N being a power of two. Cantwell teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. Cantwell discloses the method wherein, wherein N is a power of two (Fig.4, part96, V1-V4 of Cantwell)
Cantwell teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Cantwell to incorporate the features of N being a power of two so as to gain the advantage of improving division efficiency in a bit shift [Page 6, lines 14-16, specification] . Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Rosu discloses, wherein the evaluation system includes a noise estimator (Fig.6, part 610 of Rosu),
Rosu does not appear to set forth a FIFO memory. Cantwell teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. Cantwell discloses a radar system wherein, which includes a FIFO memory having N memory cells and a bit shifter (FIG.3 part 34 & FIG.4 part 96] of Cantwell) where N is a power of two (Fig.4, part96, V1-V4 of Cantwell).
Cantwell teaches in the same field of endeavor of CFAR detection. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Cantwell to incorporate the features of a FIFO memory so as to gain the advantage of increasing design simplicity and circuit efficiency [Page 6, lines 14-16, specification]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu(US20220120855A1) in view of Abboud(US5179712A).
Regarding claim 15, Rosu discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Rosu does not appear to set forth a variable window size. Abboud teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. Abboud discloses the method wherein,
wherein the window size N varies depending on number of target cells located within the window at a time of the noise estimation (“It is another object of the invention to provide a number ranking circuit for an OS CFAR detector circuit wherein the window size and target cell location may be varied;”[Col.2, ll.45-48] of Abboud)
Abboud teaches in the same field of endeavor of computational windowing. 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 Rosu with the teachings of Abboud to incorporate the features of a variable window size so as to gain the advantage of increasing the reliability of noise level calculation. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s
Disclosure.
Sanderovich (US10958287B1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses [Col.3, ll.50-54] “CFAR can be used to significantly compressed data by estimating a noise level within the radar data, then removing (compressing) values in the radar data that do not exceed a threshold minimum value above the noise level.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646