DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in TW 111131543 on 08/22/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 recite the limiting term “AS(t)=S(t2)-S(tl)”. No support for this limitation can found or implied by the instant specification in order to arrive at a “third low-frequency noise signal” or a “an intermediate frequency (IF) signal”. This limiting term involves variable to these functions that are required for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependency on Claims 1, 9.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “generating a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal comprising a plurality of output signals that is periodic”. It is unclear how a signal can be a continuous signal and periodic signals. The examiner has interpreted the limitation as “generating frequency modulated signals comprising a plurality of output signals that are periodic”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a differential time domain signal A S(t) which satisfies AS(t)=S(t2)-S(tl), wherein the differential time domain signal includes a third low-frequency noise signal”. It is unclear how a signal can be a time domain signal and a noise signal. It is further unclear how the differential signal results in a third low-frequency noise. The examiner has interpreted the limitation as “using any difference in successive signals to reduce noise”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “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 obtains an intermediate frequency (IF) signal from the differential time domain signal AS(t) through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT),”. It is unclear how an intermediate frequency signal can be obtained from a differential time domain signal. The examiner has interpreted the limitation as “using an intermediate frequency signal to obtain a differential time domain signal”.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) due to their dependency on claim 3.
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 – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0174], [0171] a microprocessor, [0204] Δ[k] denotes the frequency shift at pulse k [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. [0220] FIGS. 27A, 27B, 27C illustrate an example of the combined range (i.e. coarse and fine)/Doppler map [ρ, V, R.sub.ε] for a single target scenario.[0224] Note also that the RCM constraint is determined by the reduced chirp bandwidth Bchirp, and not the larger aggregated bandwidth Btotal. This allows for a higher range resolution radar with more robust detection probability in high velocity scenarios. Equations 17-24 arrive at a signal that utilize the difference of frequency shifts along index k which maps to the hypothetical functions without defining variables.)
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], [0224], [0228] In one embodiment, digital windowing consists of multiplying the sampled time domain signal 250 with a weight function 254 (dashed) in order to reduce sidelobes of strong signals and prevent masking of weaker signals. [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.)
wherein a target detection device processes the FMCW signal respectively with the first echo signal and the second echo signal through frequency mixing, and (Stettiner – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0171], [0174], [0204], [0220], [0224], [0228], [0232])
then two signals obtained via frequency mixing are respectively processed through filtering and Hamming window by the processor of the target detection device, (Stettiner – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0121], [0174], [0171], [0204], [0220], [0224], [0228], [0232], [0162] Example frequency distribution windows include the well-known Hann and Hamming windows.)
thereby to correspondingly obtain the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2); wherein t2-ti=Tc, a time difference between a time ti of receiving the first time domain signal S(tl) and a time t2 of receiving the second time domain signal S(t2) is one period time Tc; (Stettiner – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0121], [0174], [0171], [0204], [0220], [0224], [0228], [0232])
converting the differential time domain signal A S(t) into an intermediate frequency (IF) signal through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT); (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.)
wherein before performing the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), the differential time domain signal AS(t) is obtained by subtracting S(tl) from S(t2); and (Stettiner – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0121], [0174], [0171], [0204], [0220], [0224], [0228], [0232])
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 bandwidth processing of Stettiner with the dynamic range digital baseband downconverter 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], [0162], [0174])
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])
wherein the target detection device processes the FMCW signal respectively with the first echo signal and the second echo signal through frequency mixing, and
then two signals obtained via frequency mixing are respectively processed through filtering and Hamming window by the processor of the target detection device, thereby to correspondingly obtain the first time domain signal S(tl) and the second time domain signal S(t2); wherein t2-ti=Tc, a time difference between a time ti of receiving the first time domain signal S(tl) and a time t2 of receiving the second time domain signal S(t2) is one period time Tc; wherein before performing the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), the differential time domain signal AS(t) is obtained by subtracting S(tl) from S(t2). (Stettiner – [Eq. 17-24], [Fig. 27 A-C], [0162], [0171], [0174], [0204], [0220], [0224], [0228], [0232])
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 8-11, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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. § 112(a), 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). The examiner’s interpretation of the claims has changed as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the office action is cited accordingly.
Applicant argues, on Page 9, that “Stettiner's primary method for handling interference is "windowed blanking," which involves zeroing out a portion of a corrupted chirp”. This is only one method used for handling interference, the office action further describes the reduction in bandwidth leading to a higher range resolution is analogous to the low-frequency noise reduction when considering the combination of Stettiner and Randall as cited.
Applicant argues, on Page 9-10, that “The present invention requires that the signals first undergo frequency mixing and Hamming windowing before the subtraction occurs in the time domain”. The frequency mixing was previously understood as performing the subtraction. Without providing any details regarding the processing of the variables involved, PHOSITA could not arrive at the claimed invention as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 06/12/2026, 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 Stettiner in view of Randall 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
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights