DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 7, 14, 16 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17 are pending.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettiner (US 20210156982) in view of Randall (US 5589833).
Regarding Claim 1, Stettiner teaches the following limitations:
A target detection method, comprising: (Stettiner – [0001])
generating a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal comprising a plurality of output signals that is periodic; (Stettiner – [Fig. 6], [0001], [0040] The invention, being much simpler in terms of analog hardware, processing and memory, per virtual channel, allows a relatively large MIMO radar to be built with a plurality of TX and RX physical array elements. [0272] periodic full chirps)
signal sent by a radar module is reflected by a target respectively into a first echo signal and a second echo signal (Stettiner – [0018] the appropriate antenna system which receives echoes or reflections from the transmitted radar signal.)
sending the FMCW signal through a radar module, (Stettiner - [0001], [0173] timing and control signals or data for the various modules)
wherein the output signals comprise a first output signal and a second output signal; (Stettiner - [0121] Immediately after the first signal, a second signal with a linearly modified frequency is incorporated into the measurement.)
wherein an output time of the second output signal is different from an output time of the first output signal; (Stettiner – [Fig. 5], [0121])
receiving a first echo signal and a second echo signal reflected by a target and respectively corresponding to the first output signal and the second output signal; (Stettiner - [0121], [0018] the appropriate antenna system which receives echoes or reflections from the transmitted radar signal.)
wherein the first echo signal includes first low-frequency noises, and the second echo signal includes low-frequency second noises; (Stettiner – [Fig. 5, 15, 19], [0121], [0160] FIG. 15 illustrates modifying the effective range window using the Fourier transform of the chirp frequency distribution plus phase noise,)
processing the first echo signal and the second echo signal to correspondingly obtain a first time domain signal S(tl) and a second time domain signal S(t2); (Stettiner - [0121], [0174] Transmitted and received signals are mixed (i.e. multiplied) to generate the signal to be processed by signal processing unit 44. The multiplication process generates two signals: one with a phase equal to the difference of the multiplied signals,)
wherein the first time domain signal includes a first low-frequency noise signal, and the second time domain signal includes a second low-frequency noise signal; (Stettiner – [Fig. 5, 15, 19], [0121], [0160])
processing the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2) to obtain a differential time domain signal A S(t) which satisfies A S(t)=S(t2)-S(tl); (Stettiner - [0121], [0174], [0171] a microprocessor)
wherein the differential time domain signal includes a third low-frequency noise signal, an intensity of the third low-frequency noise signal is lower than intensities of the first low-frequency noise signal and the second low-frequency noise signal; (Stettiner – [Fig. 5, 15, 19, 21], [0121], [0160], [0174], [0232] In one embodiment, combined design of digital window and frequency sequence permutation results in acceptable levels of processing noise, for practical considerations. The present invention provides a method for sidelobe reduction in the residual range dimension R.sub.ε without increasing Doppler sidelobes.)
converting the differential time domain signal A S(t) into an intermediate frequency (IF) signal through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT); and (Stettiner - [Fig. 19, 21], [Fig. 24-26], [0121], [0174], [0170] intermediate frequency (IF) block 54, [0207] The processing paradigm of conventional radar systems is composed of range-Doppler processing: (1) fast time (i.e. range) FFT processing over index t, and (2) slow time (i.e. velocity/Doppler) FFT processing over index k.)
calculating a relative distance or a relative velocity of the target relative to the radar module based on the IF signal, (Stettiner - [0240] coarse range resolution is calculated as δρ=1.2 m, and the velocity resolution δV=0.53 m/s. A single target was positioned at an initial range R.sub.0=11 m with velocity V.sub.0=10 m/s. See associated equations.)
wherein the output signals comprise the first output signal and the second output signal that are adjacent, and the first echo signal and the second echo signal are adjacent. (Stettiner - [Fig. 5-6], [0130] FIG. 6 illustrates a sequence of long, high bandwidth chirps with identical start frequency. A plurality of chirps 22, each of duration T.sub.C (PRI) and having a bandwidth (1 GHz in the example presented herein) are transmitted during the coherent processing interval (CPI) 20. FIG. 5 illustrates the echo signal 14 delayed from the transmitted signal 12. FIG. 7 illustrates an example sequence of short, low bandwidth chirps 30 with nonlinear (e.g., randomized) start frequencies.)
Stettiner does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Randall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
low-frequency (noises) (Randall – [col. 2 ln. 23-28] The digital IF processor further includes a IF pre-processor, a programmable digital matched filter, and a wide dynamic range digital baseband downconverter to eliminate low frequency interference, DC drift, and phase amplitude mismatches.)
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 unit of Stettiner with the matched filter of Randall in order to eliminate low frequency interference (Randall – [col. 2 ln. 23-28]).
Regarding Claims 2, Stettiner further teaches:
wherein a period time of each chirp of the FMCW signal is from 10 ms to 20 ms. (Stettiner - [0260] a coherent processing interval (CPI) of 20 ms,)
Regarding Claims 3, Stettiner further teaches:
further comprising processing the FMCW signal respectively with the first echo signal and the second echo signal through frequency mixing, and processing two signals obtained via frequency mixing through filtering and Hamming window to correspondingly obtain the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2). (Stettiner - [0121], [0174], [0162] Example frequency distribution windows include the well-known Hann and Hamming windows.)
Regarding Claims 4, Stettiner further teaches:
wherein a farthest detection distance of detecting the target is 30 m. (Stettiner - [0129] In one embodiment, sensitivity is addressed by (1) increasing transmit power, (2) increasing both TX and RX gain, Maximum target detection distance is dependent on many variables to include transmit power and gain.)
Regarding Claims 6, Stettiner further teaches:
wherein the radar module generates and sends the FMCW signal, and receives the first echo signal and the second echo signal; (Stettiner - [0001], [0173])
either the target or the radar module moves relative to the other one of the target and the radar module. (Stettiner - [0001], [0173] Radar detection is inherently relative.)
Regarding Claims 8, Stettiner further teaches:
wherein an output time of the second output signal is later than an output time of the first output signal. (Stettiner – [Fig. 6], [0040])
Regarding Claim 9, Stettiner teaches the following limitations:
A target detection device (Stettiner – [0171])
wherein a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal sent by a radar module is reflected by a target respectively into a first echo signal and a second echo signal; (Stettiner – [Fig. 6], [0001], [0018], [0040], [0173])
the first echo signal and the second echo signal are processed to correspondingly obtain a first time domain signal S(tl) and a second time domain signal S(t2); (Stettiner - [0121], [0174])
the target detection device is adapted to process the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2) and comprises a processor; (Stettiner - [0121], [0171], [0174])
the target detection device is characterized in that: the processor processes the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2) to obtain a differential time domain signal AS(t) which satisfies AS(t) = S(t2) - S(tl), and (Stettiner - [0121], [0171], [0174])
obtains an intermediate frequency (IF) signal from the differential time domain signal A S(t) through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), and (Stettiner - [Fig. 19], [Fig. 24-26], [0121], [0170], [0174], [0207])
calculates a relative distance or a relative velocity of the target relative to the radar module based on the IF signal. (Stettiner - [0240])
Regarding Claims 10-13, 15, 17, Stettiner further teaches:
A millimeter wave radar system adapted to generate and send a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal and to receive a signal reflected by a target is characterized in that: the millimeter wave radar system practices the target detection method as claimed in claim 1. (Stettiner - [0001])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-6, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) 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. The Claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant argues, on Page 3, that Stettiner does not teach the “specific technical limitation” presented by the amendments. The Randall reference has been added to explicitly show another time-domain differential signal with interference filtered at low-frequency.
Applicant argues, on Page 5, “Further, FIG. 6 of Stettiner only illustrates a plurality of chirps 22 within a CPI, there is no evidence to support that these adjacent chirps generate any differential time domain signal (either considering these adjacent chirps are echoes or transmitted signals)”. The examiner disagrees, Stettiner teaches an intermediate frequency, a difference signal, and fast/slow time processing. All of these teach a form of processing a difference in at least two signals. Fig. 6 is no longer cited for disclosing adjacent signals since Fig. 6 depicts the transmitted (output signal) which inherently would result in adjacent echo returns. Fig. 5 is now cited for showing the echo signals which are depicted to be adjacent. Stettiner teaches various forms of noise that include phase noise, white noise, colored noise, and interference. Each echo inherently has associated noise and when a beat frequency (due to a difference in times between a transmit signal and a receive signal resulting in a difference of phase) generation is formed at the mixer, this forms phase noise as cited.
Applicant argues, on Page 5, “There is absolutely no mention or suggestion in Stettiner, including Figure 6, of performing a time-domain subtraction between two adjacent signals prior to frequency-domain conversion.” The examiner disagrees, this is an inherent property of a beat frequency. Though only one signal is reflected, the singular beat frequency meets the limitation of “receiving a first echo signal and a second echo signal reflected by a target and respectively”. It is further implied in Stettiner [0121] “two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters. Immediately after the first signal, a second signal with a linearly modified frequency is incorporated into the measurement.” that a difference signal is determined between two reflected measurements. Since the matched filtering of Randall is done prior to processing, the filtering can be combined with Stettiner to be applied to the individual signals (as cited) or the combination of two beat frequency measurements. The BRI presented in the Claims allows for a plurality of noise filtering methods to be mapped to the broad limitations as discussed in the previous Office Action and Randall presents another obvious and well-known form of differential signal filtering methodology (in phase and quadrature data) that could map (not relied upon) to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on Claims 1, 9. The examiner disagrees due to the above-mentioned rejections.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Funai (US 20030117311) describes a Doppler radar apparatus that utilizes multiple sweep signals that repeatedly sweep a predetermined frequency range.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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