DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, 21 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in PCT CN 2020098212 on 06/24/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1, 3-11, 13-22 are 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.
Claims 1, 11, 21 recite “quantity-of-times threshold”. It is unclear as to how this limitation differentiates from an “amplitude threshold” or a “peak- to-average ratio threshold”. Eliminating a reconstructed received signal multiple times lacks clarity and seems to involve some sort of initialization that does not have any further explanation. The examiner has interpreted this limitation as performing any form of filtering at least one time.
Claims 1, 11, 21 recite “wherein when the elimination condition includes that the quantity of times of eliminating the reconstructed received signal after the signal spectrum is obtained is less than a quantity-of-times threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that the quantity of times of eliminating the reconstructed received signal reaches an upper limit of the quantity of times”. It is unclear as to how a signal spectrum can simultaneously reach an upper limit of quantity of times of eliminating the reconstructed received signal while also not meeting the elimination condition. Eliminating a reconstructed received signal multiple times lacks clarity and seems to involve some sort of initialization that does not have any further explanation. The examiner has interpreted this limitation as performing any form of filtering at least one time.
Claims 1, 11, 21 recite “wherein when the elimination condition includes that the amplitude of the first target that is in the signal spectrum and that is greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than the amplitude threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that there is no signal whose amplitude is less than the amplitude threshold in the signal spectrum”. It is unclear what the distinction is between signal strength and amplitude is. The amplitude threshold seems to be the lower limit for elimination and the signal strength threshold is a limit that is moot due to being lower than the amplitude threshold. The examiner has interpreted this limitation as performing any form of filtering based on signal strength/amplitude.
Claims 1, 11, 21 recite “wherein when the elimination condition includes that the peak-to-average ratio of the first target that is in the signal spectrum and that is greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than the peak-to-average ratio threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that there is no signal whose peak-to-average ratio is less than the peak-to-average ratio threshold in the signal spectrum”. It is unclear how a peak-to-average ratio threshold is determined. It is further unclear how the relationship between the signal strength threshold and the peak-to-average ratio threshold is determined based on the instant specification. The examiner has interpreted this limitation as performing any form of filtering based on average peak comparisons.
Claims 3-8, 10, 13-18, 20, 22 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on the independent claims.
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, 3-8, 10-11, 13-18, 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra (US 20190317191).
Regarding Claim 1, 11, 21, Santra discloses the following limitations:
A target detection method applied to a radar, comprising: (Santra – [0004])
(Claim 11) An apparatus, comprising: (Santra – [0004])
(Claim 21) A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (Santra – [0033], [0054])
obtaining a signal spectrum based on received signals of a receive antenna of the radar; (Santra – [0004] receiving a first echo signal using the millimeter-wave radar to produce a first set of data; identifying first initial targets based on the first set of data; selecting a first angle based on the first set of data; performing a Fractional Fourier Transform (FrFT) on the first set of data based on the first initial targets using the first angle;)
reconstructing a received signal corresponding to a first target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to a signal strength threshold; (Santra – [0004] identifying first targets by comparing peaks of the FrFT of the first set of data with a first threshold [0075] During step 801, potential targets (either static or moving) are identified, with their corresponding range bins. In some embodiments, a filtering step is also performed during step 406 to remove outlier targets.)
eliminating a reconstructed received signal in the signal spectrum after determining that the signal spectrum meets an elimination condition, to obtain an updated signal spectrum representing a signal spectrum that does not comprise the first target; (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0044] During step 410, clutter is identified and removed from the data being analyzed. Clutter may be identified, for example, by using Fractional Fourier Transform (FrFT) techniques. Eliminating is understood by the examiner as differentiating between targets and/or noise. The instant specification does not indicate any form of signal cancelation or destructive interference.)
wherein the elimination condition includes a quantity of times of eliminating a reconstructed received signal after the signal spectrum is obtained is less than a quantity-of-times threshold, (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0121] The method of one of examples 1 to 15, where selecting the first angle includes: performing a plurality of FrFTs on the first set of data using a respective plurality of different angles; and for each FrFT of the plurality of FrFTs, computing a peak to average power ratio (PAPR), where an angle of the plurality of different angles associated with a highest PAPR is selected as the first angle.)
wherein the quantity-of-times threshold is a preset threshold, (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0121])
wherein when the elimination condition includes that the quantity of times of eliminating the reconstructed received signal after the signal spectrum is obtained is less than a quantity-of-times threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that the quantity of times of eliminating the reconstructed received signal reaches an upper limit of the quantity of times, (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0121])
an amplitude of the first target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than an amplitude threshold, (Santra – [0075], [0121, [0004] after receiving the first echo signal, receiving a second echo signal using the millimeter-wave radar to produce a second set of data; identifying second initial targets based on the second set of data; selecting a second angle based on the second set of data, where the second angle is different from the first angle; performing a FrFT on the second set of data based on the second initial targets using the second angle; identifying second targets by comparing peaks of the FrFT of the second set of data with the first threshold; generating a set of target tracks based on the identified first and second targets;)
wherein the amplitude threshold is a preset threshold, and (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0121], [0041] Moving targets, as well as static targets are identified by analyzing the phase information of the echo signals received and comparing the information with a threshold. The threshold applied in this step may be selected to avoid exclusion of the desired targets. Selecting a permissive threshold may result in a high probability of identification of the desired target (e.g., humans). The permissive threshold may also result in the identification as targets of some clutter (e.g., moving machinery, furniture, and other moving equipment).)
the amplitude threshold is an amplitude value corresponding to a smallest object that can be detected by the radar and is related to detection precision of the radar, (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121] Santra does not explicitly teach “corresponding to a smallest object”.)
wherein when the elimination condition includes that the amplitude of the first target that is in the signal spectrum and that is greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than the amplitude threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that there is no signal whose amplitude is less than the amplitude threshold in the signal spectrum, and (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121])
a peak-to-average ratio of the first target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than a peak-to-average ratio threshold, (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121])
wherein the peak-to-average ratio threshold is a preset threshold; (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121])
wherein when the elimination condition includes that the peak-to-average ratio of the first target that is in the signal spectrum and that is greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is less than the peak-to-average ratio threshold, that the signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition indicates that there is no signal whose peak-to-average ratio is less than the peak-to-average ratio threshold in the signal spectrum; (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121])
determining, in the updated signal spectrum, a parameter of the first target greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold; and (Santra – [0082] The velocity of the identified moving target may be extracted based on the FrFT bin location associated with the respective peak.)
obtaining at least one of location information or speed information of the determined target based on the determined parameter of the target. (Santra – [0082])
Santra does not explicitly disclose:
the amplitude threshold is an amplitude value corresponding to a smallest object that can be detected by the radar and is related to detection precision of the radar,
While Santra discloses an amplitude threshold is an amplitude value that can be detected by the radar and is related to detection precision of the radar (Santra – [0004], [0041], [0075], [0121]), Santra does not explicitly disclose that the amplitude value corresponds to the smallest object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interpreted the amplitude value of Santra that an outlier target may include a smallest target and it would be obvious that the smallest target can be filtered when considering “threshold applied in this step may be selected to avoid exclusion of the desired targets” the target as undesired. Further, the size of the target is not directly determined by amplitude and some level of processing is required before a target can be “eliminated”. This understanding would not have otherwise affected the invention of Santra and would have merely represented one of numerous target considerations that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Santra.
Regarding Claims 3, 13, 22, Santra further discloses:
wherein after the determining the parameter of a target greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold, the method further comprises: (Santra – [0004], [0082])
after determining that the updated signal spectrum meets the elimination condition, repeatedly reconstructing a received signal corresponding to a target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold and determining, in the updated signal spectrum, a parameter of a target greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold, until an updated signal spectrum does not meet the elimination condition. (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0082])
Regarding Claims 4, 14, Santra further discloses:
wherein the eliminating the reconstructed received signal in the signal spectrum to obtain the updated signal spectrum comprises: (Santra – [0004], [0075])
determining a difference between the received signal corresponding to the signal spectrum and the reconstructed received signal as a signal corresponding to the updated signal spectrum; and (Santra – [0075], [0004] generate a respective target track comparison result; and associating a target track with a human track based on the respective target track comparison result.)
determining the updated signal spectrum based on the signal corresponding to the updated signal spectrum. (Santra – [0004], [0075])
Regarding Claims 5, 15, Santra further discloses:
wherein the reconstructing the received signal corresponding to the target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold comprises: (Santra – [0004], [0075])
determining another parameter of the signal spectrum based on a parameter of the target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold, wherein the another parameter comprises one or more of an amplitude value corresponding to the target in the signal spectrum, a sequence number corresponding to the amplitude value, and (Santra – [0004], [0075], [0041] using a range Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Moving targets, as well as static targets are identified by analyzing the phase information of the echo signals received and comparing the information with a threshold.)
a phase corresponding to the amplitude value; and reconstructing, (Santra – [0041])
based on the another parameter of the signal spectrum, the received signal corresponding to the target. (Santra – [0041])
Regarding Claims 6, 16, Santra further discloses:
wherein the target in the signal spectrum greater than or equal to the signal strength threshold is a target with highest signal strength in the signal spectrum. (Santra – [0121])
Regarding Claims 7, 17, Santra further discloses:
wherein after determining that the signal spectrum is obtained based on a digital beamforming DBF algorithm, (Santra – [0068] beamspace spectrum may be computed from which angles θ and ϕ may be estimated according to a minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) algorithm:)
an amplitude of each element of the reconstructed received signal is equal to a preset multiple of a maximum amplitude value of the signal spectrum. (Santra – [0068], [0035] In some embodiments, millimeter-wave radar 302 includes a uniform linear array antenna. The echo signals received are filtered and amplified using band-pass filter (BPFs), low-pass filter (LPFs), mixers, low-noise amplifier (LNAs), and intermediate frequency (IF) amplifiers in ways known in the art.)
Regarding Claims 8, 18, Santra further discloses:
wherein the preset multiple is a reciprocal of a quantity of receive antennas of the radar. (Santra – [0035], [0068] This value is 1 in the case of one receive antenna.)
Regarding Claims 10, 20, Santra further discloses:
wherein the signal spectrum is an angle spectrum, and (Santra – [0082])
the parameter of the target comprises an angle; or the signal spectrum is a speed measurement spectrum, and the parameter of the target comprises a speed; or the signal spectrum is a ranging spectrum, and the parameter of the target comprises a range. (Santra – [0082])
Claims 9, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra (US 20190317191) in view of Molander (US 20070116142).
Regarding Claims 9, 19, Santra further discloses:
wherein after determining that the signal spectrum is obtained based on a Fourier transform algorithm, (Santra – [0004], [0075])
the reconstructed received signal is equal to a product of a proportional scaling coefficient and inverse Fourier transform of a first signal spectrum. (Santra – [0004], [0035], [0075] Santra does not teach “inverse Fourier transform”.)
Santra does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Molander, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
inverse Fourier transform (Molander – [0061] inverse Fourier transformation of the peaks compensation spectrum)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processing of Santra with the inverse Fourier transformation of Molander in order to transform results into a time domain (Molander - [0061]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner disagrees, the arguments and amendments do not address the issues of clarity regarding “quantity-of-times threshold”. Further, the amendments have raised new issues of clarity that are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-24, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments simply restate the claim language and the citations of Santra without providing any responses to previous arguments or any explanation as to how the citations differ from the mapping provided in the previous Office Actions. 37 CFR 1.111(b) states “In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 24, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Santra in view of Molander teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648