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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2022 and 01/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/11/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“emitting unit” in claim 7 which appears to be a radar transmitter (0035, fig 7)
“receiving unit” in claim 7 which appears to be a radar receiver (0036, fig 7)
“control unit” in claims 7-10, 12 which appears to be a processor (0126-0131, 0057)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li (US- 20230019007) in view of Kishida et al. (US 20100033365 hereinafter Kishida).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches A detection method using a frequency modulated continuous wave (0003 “(FMCW) radar”),
the method comprising: emitting a detection wave to detect a target object (fig 1),
wherein the detection wave is a nonlinear frequency sweep modulated signal (0006 “to accurately estimate a speed and a distance of a target object when a frequency modulated signal is nonlinear”);
receiving an echo of the detection wave reflected by the target object (fig 1);
obtaining an actual beat frequency signal according to the echo and the detection wave (0003 “The frequency mixer performs frequency mixing on the echo signal and the local-frequency signal to generate a beat frequency signal.”); and
obtaining a distance and/or velocity of the target object according to the actual beat frequency signal (0003 “Fast Fourier transform (FFT) may be performed on the sampled sequence of the beat frequency signal to obtain a frequency of the beat frequency signal, and a speed and a distance of the target object can be calculated by using the frequency of the beat frequency signal”),
Li does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kishida teaches
wherein a lateral shift of the actual beat frequency signal is used to determine a distance of the target object, and a longitudinal shift of the actual beat frequency signal is used to determine a velocity of the target object (0006 “At this time, a frequency of the reflected signal shifts due to the effects of a time delay corresponding to a relative distance of the target object and a Doppler shift corresponding to a relative velocity of the target object”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar of Kishida with the teachings of Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Kishida 0017). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kishida merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing features. Since both the Li and Kishida disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, The cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a plurality of pre-stored beat frequency signals corresponding to different distances and/or velocities (Li 0008 “the N frequency spectrograms are stored in the time sequence corresponding to the N sequences to obtain the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal. In this way, the energy of the beat frequency signal can be concentrated in some time frequency cells, and diffusion of the energy of the beat frequency signal can be reduced, thereby improving accuracy of estimating the speed and the distance of the target object.”),
wherein the obtaining a distance and/or velocity of the target object according to the actual beat frequency signal further comprises: matching a phase function of the actual beat frequency signal with phase functions of the plurality of pre-stored beat frequency signals (Li Abstract “performing matching between the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal and a plurality of theoretical 2D time frequency spectrograms to determine, as a target 2D time frequency spectrogram, a theoretical 2D time frequency spectrogram whose matching degree is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.”);
selecting a pre-stored beat frequency signal having a highest degree of matching with the actual beat frequency signal; and using a distance and/or velocity corresponding to the pre-stored beat frequency signal having the highest degree of matching as the distance and/or velocity of the target object (Li 0101 “Alternatively, a theoretical 2D time frequency spectrogram with a highest matching degree among the plurality of theoretical 2D time frequency spectrograms may be determined as the target 2D time frequency spectrogram.”).
Regarding claim 4, The cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the pre-stored beat frequency signals respectively correspond to different combinations of distances and velocities, and the selecting a pre-stored beat frequency signal having a highest degree of matching with the actual beat frequency signal comprises: selecting a pre-stored beat frequency signal having a highest degree of matching with a waveform shape and a position of the actual beat frequency signal; and using a distance and velocity corresponding to the pre-stored beat frequency signal having the highest degree of matching as the distance and velocity of the target object (Li 0007 “obtaining a distance and a speed of the target object based on a flight time and a Doppler frequency offset that correspond to the target 2D time frequency spectrogram”; 0010 “the N frequency spectrograms are stored in the time sequence corresponding to the N sequences to obtain the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal. In this way, the energy of the beat frequency signal can be concentrated in some time frequency cells, and diffusion of the energy of the beat frequency signal can be reduced, thereby improving accuracy of estimating the speed and the distance of the target object.”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Li further teaches a radar (fig 1), emitting unit (fig 1), receiving unit (fig 1), and control unit (0159 “a control system 406”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li (US- 20230019007) in view of Kishida et al. (US 20100033365 hereinafter Kishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ishii et al. (US 20080088500 hereinafter Ishii).
Regarding claim 3, The cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the pre-stored beat frequency signals respectively correspond to different distances, wherein the selecting a pre-stored beat frequency signal having a highest degree of matching with the actual beat frequency signal comprises: selecting a pre-stored beat frequency signal having a highest degree of matching with a waveform shape of the actual beat frequency signal (Li 0014 “In a possible design, the performing matching between the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal and a plurality of theoretical 2D time frequency spectrograms to determine a target 2D time frequency spectrogram may be: determining a matching degree between the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal and each of the plurality of theoretical 2D time frequency spectrograms, and determining, as the target 2D time frequency spectrogram, a theoretical 2D time frequency spectrogram whose matching degree is greater than or equal to the preset threshold.”); and
using ranging information corresponding to the pre-stored beat frequency signal having the highest degree of matching as the distance of the target object (Li 0007 “obtaining a distance and a speed of the target object based on a flight time and a Doppler frequency offset that correspond to the target 2D time frequency spectrogram. Because the target 2D time frequency spectrogram is obtained from the plurality of theoretical 2D time frequency spectrograms through matching based on the 2D time frequency spectrogram of the beat frequency signal, the target 2D time frequency spectrogram carries the corresponding flight time and Doppler frequency offset.”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ishii teaches
wherein the obtaining a distance and/or velocity of the target object according to the actual beat frequency signal comprises: determining the velocity of the target object according to a frequency difference between the actual beat frequency signal and the pre-stored beat frequency signal having the highest degree of matching (0063 “The first beat signal includes a frequency difference component fla between the transmitted signal TX and the received signal RX1 and a frequency difference component f1b between the transmitted signal TX and the received signal RX2 in the first section 101.”; 0056 “Subsequently, the data processor 10 detects peak frequencies (in bins) from the frequency spectrum using a below-mentioned method, and calculates the relative velocity of the target object with respect to the automobile, the relative distance between the automobile and the target object”; 0028 “The state-value detecting means determines the degrees of matching between the first candidate relative velocities and the second candidate relative velocities, and detects the best matched candidate relative velocity as a required relative velocity”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar of Ishii with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Ishii 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ishii merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing features. Since both Ishii and the cited prior art disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li (US- 20230019007) in view of Kishida et al. (US 20100033365 hereinafter Kishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Crooke (US PAT 3633017).
Regarding claim 5, The cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1,
While Li discusses “[0021] The frequency sweep curve f.sub.est(t) of the frequency modulated signal may be prestored”, The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Crooke teaches the nonlinear frequency sweep modulation signal is a quadratic curve function (5:67-70“As a further illustrative example of the operation of the apparatus of FIG. 2, a digital linearly swept frequency modulated waveform may be provided by the recursive generation of a quadratic phase function of time.”; 1:48-49 “Such waveforms are particularly useful in radar, sonar and communication systems.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the digital waveform generator of Crooke with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radar waveform (Crooke 1:40-49). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Crooke merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular waveform features. Since both the cited prior art and Crooke disclose similar radar waveforms, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li (US- 20230019007) in view of Kishida et al. (US 20100033365 hereinafter Kishida) and further in view of Crooke (US PAT 3633017) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ishii et al. (US 20080088500 hereinafter Ishii) in view of Kondoh (US PAT 7786927).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Crooke teach The method according to claim 5, wherein the obtaining a velocity of the target object according to the longitudinal shift of actual beat frequency signal comprises: obtaining instantaneous phase information of the actual beat frequency signal (Li 0032 “perform phase estimation on the time domain signal of the beat frequency signal to obtain a phase sequence φ.sub.ref(n) of the beat frequency signal; and calculate the frequency sweep curve f.sub.est(n) of the frequency modulated signal based on the phase sequence φ.sub.ref(n) of the beat frequency signal by using the following formula” [‘phase sequence’ corresponds to obtaining the phase samples and thus the instantaneous phase]);
obtaining the velocity of the target object according to the distance information and the instantaneous phase information of the actual beat frequency signal (0022 “In a possible design, the obtaining a distance and a speed of the target object based on a flight time and a Doppler frequency offset that correspond to the target 2D time frequency spectrogram may be: converting, based on a corresponding calculation formula, the flight time corresponding to the target 2D time frequency spectrogram into a value corresponding to a corresponding distance unit, to obtain the distance of the target object; and converting, based on a corresponding calculation formula, the Doppler frequency offset corresponding to the target 2D time frequency spectrogram into a value corresponding to a corresponding speed unit, to obtain the speed of the target object”).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ishii teaches
subtracting the instantaneous phase information of the actual beat frequency signal from phase information of a delayed signal of the actual beat frequency signal (Ishii Abstract “IF beat signals are detected in a first section and a second section serving as two adjacent frequency up-modulation sections of a transmitted wave. Frequency conversions such as FFTs are performed on the IF beat signals so that the frequency spectra are obtained. Subsequently, peak frequencies are detected from the frequency spectra in the corresponding sections, and the phase difference between the peak frequencies is determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar of Ishii with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Ishii 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ishii merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing features. Since both the previous combination and Ishii disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kondoh teaches
obtaining distance information of the target object based on a slope of a phase difference between the instantaneous phase information of the actual beat frequency signal and the phase information of the delayed signal of the actual beat frequency signal (Claim 7 “The radar according to claim 6, wherein the signal processing unit determines the speed v and the distance R of the target to be detected, based on the first equation and a second equation expressing a phase difference AO of the output signals being obtained according to respective sweep slopes, wherein the phase difference .DELTA..phi. is not varying with time and is obtained according to the first equation and the respective sweep slopes”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar system and method of Kondoh with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Kondoh 3:5-7). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kondoh merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal processing features. Since both the previous combination and Kondoh disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Takabayashi et al. (US 20090309782) discloses “According to a conventional method of correlating beat frequencies in a radar device, a detecting state of a target differs at the time of up-chirping and at that of down-chirping, so that, when the number of peaks of beat frequencies does not match with each other, there occurs a situation in which the beat frequencies cannot be accurately correlated. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648