DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending this application.
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, 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman et al (US 2020/0241111 A1) in view of Preussner (US 2016/0320471 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fetterman discloses a radar sensor comprising [0030]:
a receiver antenna [0030];
and processing circuitry that is operably coupled to the receiver antenna, the processing circuitry configured to perform acts comprising [0029-0030]:
generating a detection based upon output of the receiver antenna, the detection representing an object in a field of view of the radar sensor that has been detected by the radar sensor [0002 for field of view, and 0026 for detecting objects in a region];
wherein the sensor data includes at least one of an output of an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to an antenna of the radar sensor [0030-0031 for raw output from the ADC going to range-Doppler maps to detect sensor blockage];
computing a blockage state for the radar sensor based upon the detection and the sensor data [0031];
and outputting the blockage state to a computing system that is coupled to the radar sensor [0033].
Fetterman fails to explicitly teach raw sensor data and identifying raw sensor data corresponding to the detection.
Preussner has method in a host system include a radar detector detecting reflected radar signals and converting the reflected radar signals into digital data signals (abstract) and teaches raw sensor data [0048]
and identifying raw sensor data corresponding to the detection [0046-0048].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blocking calculations, as disclosed by Fetterman, further including the raw sensor determinations as taught by Preussner for the purpose to discard redundant detections from being sent to the tracker (Preussner, 0048).
Regarding Claim 12, Fetterman discloses method performed by a radar sensor, the method comprising [0030]:
performing a scan over a field of view of the radar sensor, where performing the scan comprises [0029 for sweeping signal]:
generating, for a window of time, sensor data based upon an electrical signal output by an antenna of the radar sensor [0002 for field of view, and 0026 for detecting objects in a region, 0033];
and outputting a detection list based upon the sensor data and identifying sensor data corresponding to the detection [0031 for list of detections],
wherein the sensor data includes at least one of an output of an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to an antenna of the radar sensor [0030-0031, 0033 and figure 1 where the output of the ADC element 34 goes to processor 36 for Doppler range bin processing];
computing a blockage state of the radar sensor based upon the sensor data and the detection list [0031],
wherein the blockage state indicates whether or not a portion of the radar sensor is subject to blockage [0031, 0038];
and outputting the blockage state to a computing system that is in communication with the radar sensor [0033].
Fetterman fails to explicitly teach raw sensor data and identifying raw sensor data corresponding to the detection.
Preussner has method in a host system include a radar detector detecting reflected radar signals and converting the reflected radar signals into digital data signals (abstract) and teaches raw sensor data [0048]
and identifying raw sensor data corresponding to the detection [0046-0048].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blocking calculations, as disclosed by Fetterman, further including the raw sensor determinations as taught by Preussner for the purpose to discard redundant detections from being sent to the tracker (Preussner, 0048).
Regarding Claim 2 and 16, Fetterman discloses the blockage state is one of a predefined number of blockage states that includes blocked, unblocked, and partially blocked [0038].
Regarding Claim 3, Fetterman discloses the raw sensor data includes a range-Doppler map that comprises a cell having a value, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the value of the cell [0031].
Regarding Claim 4, Fetterman discloses an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that is operably coupled to the receiver antenna, and further wherein the raw sensor data comprises data output by the ADC [0026, and 0031].
Regarding Claim 6, Fetterman discloses the detection comprises a range value that is indicative of a distance between the radar sensor and the object, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the range value [0033, 0050-0051].
Regarding Claim 7, Fetterman discloses the detection comprises a value that is indicative of a direction between the radar sensor and the object, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the value [0046-0048 for calculating azimuth and angle as clutter detection directions].
Regarding Claim 8 and 18, Fetterman discloses the raw sensor data comprises a magnitude value, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the magnitude value [0033, 0051].
Regarding Claim 9, Fetterman discloses computing the blockage state for the radar sensor based upon the detection and the raw sensor data comprises providing the radar sensor data and the raw sensor data as input to a computer-implemented decision tree, and further wherein the computer-implemented decision tree outputs the blockage state [0054, 0065].
Regarding Claim 11, Fetterman discloses computing the blockage state comprises identifying a type of material that is blocking at least a portion of the radar sensor from amongst several predefined materials [0002 for determining material blocking sensor such as dirt, snow, ice].
Regarding Claim 13, Fetterman discloses computing the blockage state comprises: identifying a first feature value corresponding to the detection list [0031, 0038, 0054];
and identifying a second feature value corresponding to the raw sensor data, wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the first feature value and the second feature value [0054 for features A & B].
Regarding Claim 14, Fetterman discloses computing the blockage state further comprises providing the first feature value and the second feature value as input to a computer-implemented decision tree [0054-0056],
wherein the computer-implemented decision tree outputs the blockage state based upon the first feature value and the second feature value [0054-0056].
Regarding Claim 15, Fetterman discloses the first feature value is a number of detections in the detection list [0050-0051].
Regarding Claim 21, Fetterman teaches the raw sensor data includes a signal magnitude, and wherein detecting blockage includes identifying changes in signal magnitude over time [0051 for detection magnitude or power].
Regarding Claim 22, Fetterman teaches the raw sensor data includes at least one of a variance in a magnitude of transmitted electromagnetic radiation and a variance in a magnitude of received electromagnetic radiation [0051].
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman et al (US 2020/0241111 A1) in view of Preussner (US 2017/0269196 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Millar et al (US 2017/0269196 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fetterman fails to explicitly teach the detection comprises a signal to noise (SNR) value for the detection, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the SNR value.
Millar has a radar sensor for use within a vehicle includes blockage detection functionality (abstract) and teaches the detection comprises a signal to noise (SNR) value for the detection, and further wherein the blockage state is computed based upon the SNR value [0079, 0090].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blocking calculations, as disclosed by Fetterman, further including the signal to noise determinations as taught by Millar for the purpose to allow a clearer the clutter ridge shape (Millar, 0079).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman et al (US 2020/0241111 A1) in view of in view of Preussner (US 2017/0269196 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ma et al (ArXiv, 2021).
Regarding Claim 10 and 17, Fetterman fails to explicitly teach computing the blockage state comprises identifying that the antenna of the radar sensor is blocked from amongst several antennas of the radar sensor.
Ma has densely packed antennas of millimeter-Wave MIMO systems are often blocked by the rain, snow, dust and even by fingers, which will change the channel’s characteristics and degrades the system’s performance (page 1, abstract) and teaches computing the blockage state comprises identifying that the antenna of the radar sensor is blocked from amongst several antennas of the radar sensor [page 4, figure 1 and first paragraph].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blocking calculations, as disclosed by Fetterman, further including the blocked antenna determinations as taught by Ma for the purpose to exploiting the correlations between the adjacent blocked antennas to detect the location of blocked antennas (Ma, page 4, second paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
Applicant’s arguments page 6, second paragraph the applicant states the obviousness rejections is improper. The examiner respectfully disagrees: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Preussner’s direct processing of raw ADC-level radar data for sensor blockage determination with Fetterman’s feature based and machiner-learning refinement of radar blockage classification, because both references address the same problem of radar sensor blockage, operate on the same raw radar signal pipeline (ADC-FFT-range Doppler data), and merely apply predictable, complementary processing techniques to the same input data, yielding no more than an expected improvement in blockage detection accuracy under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments page 7, third paragraph the applicant states that Preussner fails to teach raw sensor data. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Preussner expressly teaches acquiring using and processing raw radar sensor data no merely post-processed object detections. Preussner teaches receiving reflected radar signals, converting them into digitized baseband I/Q samples via ADCs, and directly processing that raw radar sensor data using FFT based range-Doppler analysis to determine sensor blockage, without reliance on post-processed detections [Preussner, 0028-0031, 0047-0049].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights