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
Applicant’s IDS, filed 05/19/2026, has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/23/2026 have been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/23/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of Cattle is improper because Cattle does not teach the processing circuitry of the claim. MPEP 2120 (III) states, “for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either explicitly or impliedly.” MPEP 2111 states that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and MPEP 2111.01(II) states that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. The applicant argues that the following features are not taught by Cattle:
The processing circuitry is configured to use the first focused data to select a subset of the first voxels, because Cattle teaches using the low-resolution scan to determine areas of interest rather than voxels
The processing circuitry is configured to use the selected first voxels to identify a plurality of second voxels of the targeting imaging volume, because Cattle does not teach first voxels and thus cannot teach using first voxels to identify second voxels
The applicant’s arguments are not convincing because Cattle teaches using the low-resolution scan to determine areas of interest. Cattle teaches that the areas of interest can be identified based on areas of high intensity. Para 0092 gives intensity as an example of a voxel attribute, indicating that identifying areas of interest involves identifying voxels that have high intensity. Thus, Cattle clearly suggests that the low-resolution scan used to identify areas of interest can be understood as low-resolution voxels (i.e., voxels with high intensity) to identify areas of interest to then resolve further (i.e., second voxels). This interpretation is further supported by the use of the term “multi-resolution image” in para. 0100, which indicates that the image generated by the radar device includes voxels resolved to different levels, suggesting that the first, low-resolution scan provides the “fuzzy” or “blurry” voxels Cattle describes as being part of the multi-resolution image.
This interpretation is further supported by paras. 0123-0125 of Cattle. Paras. 0123-0124 clearly indicate that a multi-resolution image like that of para. 0100 has voxels of varying resolution, with the voxels identified as areas of interest having a higher resolution than voxels outside said areas of interest. Para. 0125 further notes that after resolving a first plurality of areas of interest (which can be represented as voxels, per para. 0092), the radar device can identify areas of further interest to resolve at a higher resolution (which, again, can be represented as voxels per para. 0092), indicating that the low-resolution scan can be represented as voxels which are then used to identify areas of interest. Thus, this argument is not convincing.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant argues that Cattle fails to teach that the imaging system provides data for at least substantially an entirety of the target imaging volume, because Cattle teaches looping only over areas of interest rather than looping over every voxel. The applicant further argues that paras. 0095 and 0100 of Cattle refer to different embodiments of Cattle’s invention. However, the examiner notes that para. 0125 indicates that the image-creation process can include both high-resolution and low-resolution scans. Furthermore, in para. 0124, Cattle notes that the image-formation process can be parametrized, noting that the image can be focused around the areas of interest and blurry in other regions. Finally, in para. 0100, Cattle indicates that the process of said paragraph produces a multi-resolution image, i.e., an image where some voxels are more focused than others.
Based on this, the Examiner understands the difference between the process of paras. 0095-0099 and para. 0100 to be in the resolving or focusing step, not the creation of voxels. That is, paras. 0095-0099 teach a method of sharply focusing all the voxels in a scene, while para. 0100 teaches a method of only sharply focusing the voxels in areas of interest. This difference does not indicate that the voxels for the full scene do not exist in the final image. Rather, it indicates that the full scene can be resolved on the “blurry” setting, i.e., without the looping process, while areas of interest are resolved on the “focused” setting, i.e., with the looping process. Thus, the applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant argues that Cattle does not teach using the first focused data to identify a sub-volume within the target imaging volume; and second focusing the radar data corresponding to the sub-volume to provide second focused data at a second resolution of the target imaging volume, because, per the applicant’s arguments, an “area of interest” within a radar image is not a sub-volume within the target imaging volume. However, Cattle makes clear that the imaging area is a volume, and areas of interest are indicated within that volume (see Cattle, para. 0100). Furthermore, para. 0125 clearly states that areas of interest can be used to identify further areas of interest, which are then scanned and resolved at a higher focus. Areas of interest in a three-dimensional image cannot be identified as anything other than sub-volumes of said image, because areas of interest can only be identified within the image, not without.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant argues that Cattle fails to disclose that the first voxels correspond to at least substantially an entirety of the target imaging volume. For the reasons noted above with respect to claim 2, the applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Regarding claim 23, the applicant’s argument regarding the combination of paras. 0095 and 0100 is not convincing for the reasons noted above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, the applicant’s argument is convincing and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection using new art is set forth in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cattle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0059523 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cattle et al. discloses,
An imaging system (para. 0002, “The technical field relates to radar imaging systems and methods”) comprising:
an antenna system comprising a plurality of transmit antennas and a plurality of receive antennas, and wherein the transmit antennas are configured to emit electromagnetic energy towards a target imaging volume and the receive antennas are configured to receive reflections of the electromagnetic energy from the target imaging volume (para. 0028, “A transmitter array comprising a first plurality of transmitter antennas can transmit the first plurality of independent transmitted radar signals toward a field of view. A receiver array comprising a second plurality of receiver antennas can receive a second plurality of receive radar signals representing responses to the first plurality of independent transmitted radar signal from the field of view.” See also fig. 2A);
a transceiver coupled with the antenna system (fig. 5, MMIC radar system 500. The examiner notes that the system 500 includes both Tx and Rx antennas and the accompanying processors, and therefore acts as a transceiver), and wherein the transceiver is configured to control the emission of the electromagnetic energy from the transmit antennas (para. 0135, “A transmitter of the array can be active if it is receiving the LO signal from the switch matrix. So, to implement TDM the FPGA can toggle the switch matrix to cycle through all of the transmitters. For each transmitter, one full FM modulation cycle is sent out”) and to output signals that are indicative of the reflections of the electromagnetic energy received via the receive antennas (para, 0139, “A transmitter of the array can be active if it is receiving the LO signal from the switch matrix. So, to implement TDM the FPGA can toggle the switch matrix to cycle through all of the transmitters. For each transmitter, one full FM modulation cycle is sent out”);
a data acquisition system configured to sample the signals from the transceiver and output radar data corresponding to the signals (para. 0141, “The present system 500 contains some specific features that address this problem. In particular, the integrated receive MIMIC contains an onboard ADC and sample buffer. Upon being triggered, each receiver can record a specified number of samples of its IF waveform, storing them locally for later readout”); and
processing circuitry (fig. 5, FPGA) configured to:
access the radar data from the data acquisition system (fig. 5, data is sent from the Rx MMIC to the serial data MUX to the FPGA);
first focus the radar data to provide first focused data for a plurality of first voxels of the target imaging volume, and wherein the first voxels have a first resolution (para. 0100, “For example, one embodiment might perform “multi-resolution processing”. First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified” See also para. 0125,“Specifically, the imaging module 316 can scan a plurality of areas of interest in the field of view at a first resolution to identify attributes to image at a different resolution, e.g. higher resolution.” The examiner notes that para. 0092 indicates that the imaging module represents the field of view using voxels);
use the first focused data to select a subset of the first voxels (para. 0100, “For example, one embodiment might perform “multi-resolution processing”. First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on.” The examiner notes that para. 0092 states that, “Attributes rendered by the imaging module 316, as part of the representation of the field of view, can include voxels/attributes of voxels in one or more areas of interest in the field of view. Specifically, the imaging module 316 can be configured to identify physical properties of voxels in the one or more areas of interest. For example, the imaging module 316 can identify material characteristics of an object within the field of view. Further, the imaging module 316 can be configured to identify a reflectiveness of one or more voxels in the one or more areas of interest…For example, the imaging module 316 can identify the locations of a certain number of high-intensity targets, e.g. which might be spectral reflections from metal on cars”);
use the selected first voxels to identify a plurality of second voxels of the target imaging volume, and wherein the second voxels have a second resolution that is increased compared with the first resolution (para. 0100, “Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest. This would allow faster frame processing. The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”);
second focus the radar data to provide second focused data for the identified second voxels (para. 0100, “Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest. This would allow faster frame processing. The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”); and
use the second focused data to generate an image of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest. This would allow faster frame processing. The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 2, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to first focus the radar data for the first voxels which correspond to at least substantially an entirety of target imaging volume, and the processing circuitry is configured to second focus the radar data for the identified second voxels which correspond to less than the entirety of target imaging volume (para. 0100, “For example, one embodiment might perform “multi-resolution processing”. First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest.”).
Regarding claim 3, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 wherein the first focused data comprises a plurality of intensity values for the first voxels, and the processing circuitry is configured to select the some of the first voxels having intensity values greater than a threshold (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”).
Regarding claim 4, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 wherein the first voxels of the subset correspond to a sub-volume within the target imaging volume, and the second voxels correspond to at least substantially an entirety of the sub-volume (para. 0100, “hods to perform a more intelligent scan. For example, one embodiment might perform “multi-resolution processing”. First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest.”).
Regarding claim 5, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 further comprising a display configured to use the second focused data to generate a visual representation of the image (para. 0100, “The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 9, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to not focus the radar data for others of the second voxels that were not identified (para. 0124, “For example, the imaging module 316 can adjust the focus to decrease the resolution near an area of interest in the field of view, e.g. create a blurry image around the area of interest.”).
Regarding claim 11, Cattle et al. discloses,
An imaging system (fig. 1B, radar imaging system 102) comprising: processing circuitry (fig. 5, FPGA) configured to access radar data resulting from reflection of electromagnetic energy from a target imaging volume (fig. 5, data is sent from the Rx MMIC to the serial data MUX to the FPGA); first focus the radar data to provide first focused data for at least substantially an entirety of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified”); use the first focused data to identify a sub-volume of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified”); and second focus the radar data to provide second focused data for the sub- volume of the target imaging volume, and wherein the second focused data has increased resolution compared with the first focused data (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”) and the second focused data comprises an image of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 12, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 11 wherein the first focused data comprises a plurality of intensity values for a plurality of voxels, and the processing circuitry is configured to identify the sub-volume comprising some of the voxels having intensity values greater than a threshold (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”).
Regarding claim 14, Cattle et al. discloses,
An imaging method fig. 1B, radar imaging system 102) comprising: emitting electromagnetic energy towards a target imaging volume (para. 0028, “A transmitter array comprising a first plurality of transmitter antennas can transmit the first plurality of independent transmitted radar signals toward a field of view.”); receiving the electromagnetic energy reflected from the target imaging volume (para. 0028, “A receiver array comprising a second plurality of receiver antennas can receive a second plurality of receive radar signals representing responses to the first plurality of independent transmitted radar signal from the field of view.”); generating radar data indicative of the received electromagnetic energy (para. 0141, “the present system 500 contains some specific features that address this problem. In particular, the integrated receive MIMIC contains an onboard ADC and sample buffer. Upon being triggered, each receiver can record a specified number of samples of its IF waveform, storing them locally for later readout”); first focusing the radar data to provide first focused data at a first resolution of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified”); using the first focused data to identify a sub-volume within the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified”); and second focusing the radar data corresponding to the sub-volume to provide second focused data at a second resolution of the target imaging volume, wherein the second resolution is increased compared with the first resolution (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”) and the second focused data comprises an image of the target imaging volume (para. 0100, “The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 15,
The method of claim 14 wherein the first focused data comprises a plurality of intensity values for a plurality of first voxels at the first resolution, wherein the using the first focused data comprises selecting a subset of the first voxels having intensity values greater than a threshold, and wherein the sub- volume corresponds to the first voxels of the subset (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”).
Regarding claim 16, Cattle et al. discloses,
The method of claim 14 wherein the first focused data comprises data for a plurality of first voxels having the first resolution and the second focused data comprises data for a plurality of second voxels having the second resolution (para. 0100, “The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 17, Cattle et al. discloses,
The method of claim 16 wherein the using the first focused data comprises using the first focused data to select a subset of the first voxels, and wherein the sub-volume corresponds to a volume defined by the first voxels of the subset (para. 0100, “First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions”).
Regarding claim 19, Cattle et al. discloses,
The method of claim 14 further comprising displaying the second focused data to generate a visual representation of the image (para. 0100, “The systems herein can function to build an image with multiple levels of “focus”, with the most detail reserved for only the most important regions of the scene. The choice of “importance” can be application-dependent.”).
Regarding claim 20, Cattle et al. discloses,
The method of claim 14 wherein the second focusing comprises second focusing only the radar data that corresponds to the sub-volume (para. 0100, “hods to perform a more intelligent scan. For example, one embodiment might perform “multi-resolution processing”. First, a low-resolution scan is made, and areas of interest are identified. Depending on the application these could be areas of high intensity, high contrast, polarimetric signature, the geometric position of an estimated road surface, the interpolated position of a known tracked target from a prior frame, and so on. Once these features have been identified then subsequent higher-resolution passes can focus only on these regions and avoid computing voxels outside the regions of interest.”).
Regarding claim 23, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to first focus the radar data to provide the first focused data for all of the first voxels of the target imaging volume (para. 0095, “Specifically, the imaging module 316 can loop over all voxels to form an image. At each voxel, the imaging module 316 can loop over each waveform for each transmit-receive antenna combination. As part of these operations, the imaging module 316 can first subtract from the waveform the phase offset corresponds to the travel distance from this transmit antenna, to this voxel, and back to this receive antenna. This has the effect of interpolating the received waveform at the exact moment (time delay) corresponding to the range to that voxel. Specifically, the imaging module can effectively “select” the time delay corresponding to a voxel of interest.” The examiner notes that selecting time delay and subtracting phase offset are being understood to be focusing processes).
Regarding claim 24, Cattle et al. discloses,
The system of claim 11 wherein the target imaging volume comprises a plurality of voxels and the processing circuitry is configured to first focus the radar data for all of the voxels of the target imaging volume to provide the first focused data (para. 0095, “Specifically, the imaging module 316 can loop over all voxels to form an image. At each voxel, the imaging module 316 can loop over each waveform for each transmit-receive antenna combination. As part of these operations, the imaging module 316 can first subtract from the waveform the phase offset corresponds to the travel distance from this transmit antenna, to this voxel, and back to this receive antenna. This has the effect of interpolating the received waveform at the exact moment (time delay) corresponding to the range to that voxel. Specifically, the imaging module can effectively “select” the time delay corresponding to a voxel of interest.” The examiner notes that selecting time delay and subtracting phase offset are being understood to be focusing processes.
Regarding claim 25, Cattle et al. discloses,
The method of claim 14 wherein the target imaging volume comprises a plurality of voxels, and the first focusing comprises first focusing the radar data for all of the voxels of the target imaging volume to provide the first focused data (para. 0095, “Specifically, the imaging module 316 can loop over all voxels to form an image. At each voxel, the imaging module 316 can loop over each waveform for each transmit-receive antenna combination. As part of these operations, the imaging module 316 can first subtract from the waveform the phase offset corresponds to the travel distance from this transmit antenna, to this voxel, and back to this receive antenna. This has the effect of interpolating the received waveform at the exact moment (time delay) corresponding to the range to that voxel. Specifically, the imaging module can effectively “select” the time delay corresponding to a voxel of interest.” The examiner notes that selecting time delay and subtracting phase offset are being understood to be focusing processes.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 13, 21-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattle in view of Baharav (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0139248 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cattle et al. teaches the system of claim 1. Cattle further teaches that the data from the first and second focusings is of the same area, but from subsequent scans. Cattle further teaches that radar data processing can include multiple levels of focus. However, Cattle does not explicitly teach,
…wherein the radar data that is focused by the processing circuitry during the first and second focusings is the same radar data
Baharav teaches,
…wherein the radar data that is focused by the processing circuitry during the first and second focusings is the same radar data (paras. 0077-0078, “The array 50 emits microwave radiation over volume 160 in order to capture a microwave image of objects 150 within the volume 160. The microwave image can be displayed on one or more displays 120 located inside the vehicle…However, as can be seen in FIG. 10, as the distance from the array 50 increases, the size of the voxel also increases. Therefore, the resolution of the microwave image is coarser in standoff regions (e.g., region 620) than in regions (e.g., region 610) closer to the array 50.”).
Cattle and Baharav are both analogous to the claimed invention because they teach methods of developing multi-resolution images of an area. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method of Cattle with the multi-resolution single image of Baharav to arrive at the claimed invention. As Baharav notes, areas at a further distance from a vehicle are less likely to contain threats to said vehicle, thus indicating that they are less likely to be areas of interest. Using a coarser resolution reduces the processing time and computational load on the imaging device, thus enabling a faster response time. Thus, the imaging technique of Baharav for the initial scan of Cattle would have the predictable result of decreasing the processing time for the low-resolution scan of Cattle, increasing the responsiveness of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Cattle et al. teaches the system of claim 11. Cattle further teaches that the data from the first and second focusings is of the same area, but from subsequent scans. Cattle further teaches that radar data processing can include multiple levels of focus. However, Cattle does not explicitly teach,
…wherein the processing circuitry is configured to focus the same set of radar data during execution of the first and second focusing.
Baharav teaches,
…wherein the processing circuitry is configured to focus the same set of radar data during execution of the first and second focusing (paras. 0077-0078, “The array 50 emits microwave radiation over volume 160 in order to capture a microwave image of objects 150 within the volume 160. The microwave image can be displayed on one or more displays 120 located inside the vehicle…However, as can be seen in FIG. 10, as the distance from the array 50 increases, the size of the voxel also increases. Therefore, the resolution of the microwave image is coarser in standoff regions (e.g., region 620) than in regions (e.g., region 610) closer to the array 50.”).
Cattle and Baharav are both analogous to the claimed invention because they teach methods of developing multi-resolution images of an area. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method of Cattle with the multi-resolution single image of Baharav to arrive at the claimed invention. As Baharav notes, areas at a further distance from a vehicle are less likely to contain threats to said vehicle, thus indicating that they are less likely to be areas of interest. Using a coarser resolution reduces the processing time and computational load on the imaging device, thus enabling a faster response time. Thus, the imaging technique of Baharav for the initial scan of Cattle would have the predictable result of decreasing the processing time for the low-resolution scan of Cattle, increasing the responsiveness of the system.
Regarding claim 21, Cattle et al. discloses the method of claim 14. Cattle further teaches that the data from the first and second focusings is of the same area, but from subsequent scans. Cattle further teaches that radar data processing can include multiple levels of focus. However, Cattle does not explicitly teach,
…wherein the first and second focusings individually comprise focusing the same set of data.
Baharav teaches,
…wherein the first and second focusings individually comprise focusing the same set of data (paras. 0077-0078, “The array 50 emits microwave radiation over volume 160 in order to capture a microwave image of objects 150 within the volume 160. The microwave image can be displayed on one or more displays 120 located inside the vehicle…However, as can be seen in FIG. 10, as the distance from the array 50 increases, the size of the voxel also increases. Therefore, the resolution of the microwave image is coarser in standoff regions (e.g., region 620) than in regions (e.g., region 610) closer to the array 50.”).
Cattle and Baharav are both analogous to the claimed invention because they teach methods of developing multi-resolution images of an area. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method of Cattle with the multi-resolution single image of Baharav to arrive at the claimed invention. As Baharav notes, areas at a further distance from a vehicle are less likely to contain threats to said vehicle, thus indicating that they are less likely to be areas of interest. Using a coarser resolution reduces the processing time and computational load on the imaging device, thus enabling a faster response time. Thus, the imaging technique of Baharav for the initial scan of Cattle would have the predictable result of decreasing the processing time for the low-resolution scan of Cattle, increasing the responsiveness of the system.
Regarding claim 22, Cattle et al. teaches the system of claim 1. Cattle further teaches that the total sub-volume of the higher-resolution scan is less than the sub-volume of the lower-resolution scan (para. 0125). However, Cattle is silent as to how the volumes of the voxels themselves relate to one another from scan to scan. Thus, Cattle does not teach,
…wherein each of the first voxels corresponds to a first volume of the target imaging volume and each of the second voxels corresponds to a second volume of the target imaging volume, and the second volume is less than the first volume.
Baharav teaches,
…wherein each of the first voxels corresponds to a first volume of the target imaging volume and each of the second voxels corresponds to a second volume of the target imaging volume, and the second volume is less than the first volume (fig. 10, see voxel size depicted on the left-hand side of the image).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method of Cattle with the multi-resolution single image of Baharav to arrive at the claimed invention. As Baharav notes, areas at a further distance from a vehicle are less likely to contain threats to said vehicle, thus indicating that they are less likely to be areas of interest. Using a larger voxel size results in a coarser resolution, thus reducing the processing time and computational load on the imaging device and enabling a faster response time. Thus, the imaging technique of Baharav for the initial scan of Cattle would have the predictable result of decreasing the processing time for the low-resolution scan of Cattle, increasing the responsiveness of the system.
Regarding claim 26, Cattle et al. teaches the system of claim 1. Cattle further teaches (note: what Cattle does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the transceiver is configured to control the emission of the electromagnetic energy from the transmit antennas towards a target within the target imaging volume (fig. 1, vehicle radar system 102 emits radio waves towards object 106)
Baharav teaches,
…wherein the transceiver is configured to control the emission of the electromagnetic energy from the transmit antennas towards a target within the target imaging volume (fig. 1, array 50. See also para. 0029) and the image of the target imaging volume includes an object that is concealed by the target (paras. 0004-0008, “Therefore, as a result of the need for improved surveillance systems, various microwave imaging systems have been proposed as alternatives to existing optical systems. Microwave radiation is generally defined as electromagnetic radiation having wavelengths between radio waves and infrared waves. Since microwave radiation is non-ionizing, it poses no known health risks to people at moderate power levels. In addition, over the spectral band of microwave radiation, most dielectric materials, such as clothing, paper, plastic and leather are nearly transparent. Therefore, microwave imaging systems have the ability to penetrate clothing to image items concealed by clothing…Therefore, what is needed is a microwave imaging that is capable of performing standoff microwave imaging with sufficient resolution to identify objects of interest, such as contraband, in standoff regions.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar imaging of Cattle with the concealed object detection of Baharav. As Baharav notes, microwaves are ideal for identifying concealed objects, because they are non-ionizing and can penetrate most dielectric materials. Thus, the device of Cattle can be used to identify concealed objects because it uses the appropriate wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Identifying concealed objects would have the predictable result of adding more detail to the scene that Cattle identifies, enabling the radar system of Cattle to alert the vehicle of Cattle to avoid concealed threats.
Regarding claim 27, Cattle teaches the system of claim 1. Cattle further teaches that the data from the first and second focusings is of the same area, but from subsequent scans. Cattle further teaches that radar data processing can include multiple levels of focus. However, Cattle does not teach,
… wherein the radar data that is focused by the processing circuitry during the first and second focusings is obtained by a single scan of the target imaging volume.
Baharav teaches,
… wherein the radar data that is focused by the processing circuitry during the first and second focusings is obtained by a single scan of the target imaging volume (paras. 0077-0078, “The array 50 emits microwave radiation over volume 160 in order to capture a microwave image of objects 150 within the volume 160. The microwave image can be displayed on one or more displays 120 located inside the vehicle…However, as can be seen in FIG. 10, as the distance from the array 50 increases, the size of the voxel also increases. Therefore, the resolution of the microwave image is coarser in standoff regions (e.g., region 620) than in regions (e.g., region 610) closer to the array 50.”).
Cattle and Baharav are both analogous to the claimed invention because they teach methods of developing multi-resolution images of an area. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method of Cattle with the multi-resolution single image of Baharav to arrive at the claimed invention. As Baharav notes, areas at a further distance from a vehicle are less likely to contain threats to said vehicle, thus indicating that they are less likely to be areas of interest. Using a coarser resolution reduces the processing time and computational load on the imaging device, thus enabling a faster response time. Thus, the imaging technique of Baharav for the initial scan of Cattle would have the predictable result of decreasing the processing time for the low-resolution scan of Cattle, increasing the responsiveness of the system.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattle in view of Kozick (R. J. Kozick and S. A. Kassam, "Synthetic aperture pulse-echo imaging with rectangular boundary arrays (acoustic imaging)," in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 68-79, Jan. 1993, doi: 10.1109/83.210867.).
Regarding claim 28, Cattle teaches the system of claim 1. Cattle further teaches an antenna system comprising a sparse radar array (see para. 0002). However, Cattle is silent as to the particular shape of the sparse array and thus does not teach,
…wherein the antenna system comprises a boundary array wherein the transmit antennas and the receive antennas are located at a perimeter of a unit cell.
Kozick teaches,
…wherein the antenna system comprises a boundary array wherein the transmit antennas and the receive antennas are located at a perimeter of a unit cell (fig. 1. See also the description of fig. 1 on p. 68, right col., para. 2).
Kozick is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sparse array of Cattle with the particular boundary array of Kozick because the boundary array of Kozick is appropriate for imaging a scene and would have the predictable result of providing radar data from a sparse array that could be focused using the techniques of Cattle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Cattle et al. and Baharav et al. are the closest prior art to the claimed invention, because both inventions discuss methods of focusing radar data.
Regarding claim 6, Cattle et al. discloses the system of claim 1. Baharav et al. discloses performing a second focusing comprising second focusing the radar data providing the second focused data for additional second voxels (step 1140). However, neither Baharav et al. nor Cattle et al. disclose using the some of the first voxels to identify a plurality of additional first voxels that were not selected. Rather, Cattle et al. and Baharav et al. both disclose using the first scan to identify additional targets. Therefore, the applicant’s use of a previously-identified area of interest to identify a further area of interest is not taught in either prior art reference.
In reference to independent claim 6, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8 contain allowable subject matter because they depend upon, and therefore include all the limitations of, allowable claim 6.
Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons and under the same references as allowable claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights