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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending in the application, where claims 3, 11, and 19 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the drawing claim objections from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulley (US 20220244352 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20230152424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pulley discloses [Note: what Pulley fails to disclose is strike-through]
A radar ranging method (see pg. 1, paragraph 0004, “method of detecting presence of an object of low radar cross section”), wherein the method comprises:
sending a first radar signal through a first transmitter (see Fig. 1; pg. 3, paragraph 0057, “the radar unit 101 is constructed and arranged to control the transmit antenna 111 to output one or more RF signals”);
receiving a first echo signal of the first radar signal through a first receiver, wherein the first echo signal comprises an echo signal of a first target (see Fig. 2, signals 201b and 202b, target 210a; pg. 4, paragraph 0073, the “reflected signal 202b travels back towards the radar device 100 and is received by the receive antenna 112”);
receiving a second echo signal of the first radar signal through a second receiver (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, radar unit 100 receives multiple echo signals), wherein the second receiver is located outside a primary signal transmission path between the first transmitter and the first receiver (see Fig. 13, pg. 11, paragraph 0167, the radar unit may include “at least one antenna receive chain… The antenna receive chain 1010 comprises at least an RF receive amplifier 1003…It is appreciated that there may be more than one antenna receive chain 1010… and that each antenna receive chain 1010 may be operatively coupled to a respective receive antenna 112”; pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “In practice, any suitable known radar technology hardware may be used. For example, an antenna array may be used in place of the single transmit antenna 111 shown in FIG. 1. Similarly, the transmit antenna 111 and receive antenna 112 are shown as separate integers in FIG. 1 for the sake of clarity, but it is understood that a single combined transmit-receive antenna may perform the functionality of both the transmit antenna 111 and receive antenna 112 described herein”; pg. 4, paragraph 0059, the signals can be “received by the receive antenna(s) 112”), wherein the second echo signal is used to determine a target spurious echo signal corresponding to an obstacle (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, the echo signal may correspond to a reflective object, a wall, or an obstacle such as a human), wherein the second echo signal comprises a first spurious echo signal corresponding to the obstacle, and the target spurious echo signal is obtained by correcting the first spurious echo signal based on the first echo signal using a ratio (see Figures 4, 9, and 11, and their respective response profiles Figs. 5, 10, and 12; the echo signals, spurious or not, may correspond to targets or obstacles, such as human 250, a wall of a room, or object 210; see pg. 8, paragraph 0129, the processor 102 “may take multiple readings of the test response 500 using the radar front end” over a duration of time; pg. 6, paragraph 0103, “The processor 102 may be configured to compare the test response profile with the steady state response profile by determining a difference between the two (i.e. by subtracting the steady state response profile from the test response profile, or vice-versa). Calculating such a difference (e.g. a subtraction or ratio) between the test response profile and the steady state response profile also allows the processor 102 to determine increases or at least partial appearances of reflected signals. In general, the processor may determine the difference between the test response profile and the steady state response profile using any computation”) and wherein the echo signal of the first target and the target spurious echo signal are different signals (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, there are different echo signals); and
performing ranging processing on the first target based on the first echo signal and the second echo signal (see pg. 4, paragraph 0059, “The radar unit 101 is configured to perform any preliminary processing steps on the received RF signals… to determine a radar response profile of the environment”).
Zhao discloses
a ratio of signal amplitudes at corresponding sampling moments (see pg. 3, paragraph 0055, both echo signal amplitude
A
2
and reference signal amplitude
f
b
are included in the dechirping formula resulting in a ratio; the formula is time dependent on t with a time delay τ as well)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zhao into the invention of Pulley. Both Pulley and Zhao are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose methods for improving accuracy of target detection among false targets via radar. Pulley discloses a first radar signal, first transmitter, first echo signal, first receiver, second echo signal, second receiver, determining a target spurious echo signal, and performing ranging on the first target based on echo signals; however, Pulley fails to disclose using a ratio of signal amplitudes at corresponding sampling moments to determine a target spurious echo signal. This feature is disclosed by Zhao where signal amplitude is calculated and used to distinguish false targets from true targets. The combination of Pulley and Zhao would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to “achieve a better detection effect after signal processing” (see Zhao pg. 1, paragraph 0006) by improving the detection and determination of false targets/clutter and intended targets of interest.
Regarding claim 2, Pulley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the obstacle comprises at least one of an inner wall of a housing, a window (see pg. 10, paragraph 0162, the reflected signal may be from a window), or an internal circuit of a radar ranging apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, Pulley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the target spurious echo signal is obtained based on a plurality of second adjusted signals (see pg. 3, paragraph 0057, the transmitter may output RF signals of various frequencies) and the first echo signal, and the plurality of second adjusted signals are obtained based on the first spurious echo signal (see pg. 7, paragraph 0115, radar ranging readings are taken throughout the day, and the radar unit response depends on detected reflection signals).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses
The method according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of second adjusted signals are obtained based on a plurality of first adjusted signals and amplitude coefficients of the plurality of first adjusted signals, and the plurality of first adjusted signals are obtained after delay time of the first spurious echo signal is adjusted a plurality of times, wherein an amplitude coefficient of each of the plurality of first adjusted signals is a ratio of an amplitude of the first echo signal at a first sampling moment to an amplitude of the respective first adjusted signal at the first sampling moment (see pg. 3, paragraph 0055, both echo signal amplitude
A
2
and reference signal amplitude
f
b
are included in the dechirping formula resulting in a ratio; the formula is time dependent on t with a time delay τ as well).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zhao into the invention of Pulley. Pulley fails to disclose the amplitude coefficient of the adjusted signals being a ratio of amplitudes from other signals at other times. This feature is disclosed by Zhao where signal amplitude is calculated and used to distinguish false targets from true targets. The combination of Pulley and Zhao would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the detection and determination of false targets/clutter and intended targets of interest.
Regarding claim 6, Pulley further discloses
The method according to claim 4, wherein the target spurious echo signal is a second adjusted signal in the plurality of second adjusted signals, that has a smallest minimum mean square error processing result with the first echo signal (see pg. 7, paragraph 0106, two radar profile readings can be compared by determining a mean square difference between the two readings, across all range bins).
Regarding claim 7, Pulley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first echo signal further comprises a second spurious echo signal corresponding to the obstacle, and the first spurious echo signal and the second spurious echo signal are used to determine the target spurious echo signal (see Figures 4, 9, and 11; see pg. 8, paragraph 0124, “multiple clutter concealment events can be used to estimate” the target).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12-15, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-2 and 4-7 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-7 and claims 9-15 is that claims 1-7 refer to a method while claims 9-15 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Pulley Figure 1, pg. 3, paragraph 0054, “an apparatus in accordance with examples described herein” to show that there is a radar apparatus performing the radar method of claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 20, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1, 2, and 4 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-4 and 17-20 is that claims 1-4 refer to a method while claims 17-20 refer to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium. The examiner considers Pulley pg. 11, paragraph 0172, “the exemplary embodiments may be implemented at least in part by computer software stored in (non-transitory) memory” to show that there is a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the radar method of claims 1-4.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulley (US 20220244352 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20230152424 A1) and further in view of Kirk et al. (US 20100245166 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kirk discloses
The method according to claim 7, wherein the second spurious echo signal is obtained by performing Gaussian decomposition on the first echo signal (see Fig. 5; pg. 2, paragraph 0019, Gaussian decomposition is performed on the reflected signals).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kirk into the inventions of Pulley and Zhao. Pulley, Zhao, and Kirk are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose methods for processing radar reflected signals for target detection. Pulley and Zhao disclose the limitations of claim 7; however, Pulley and Zhao fail to disclose performing Gaussian decomposition on a signal. This feature is disclosed by Kirk where Gaussian decomposition is used to determine the parameters of reflected signals in order to predict turbulence of an aircraft. The combination of Pulley, Zhao, and Kirk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine specific parameters of the received signal to more accurately determine the details of a target and be able to respond accordingly, which in the case of the examined application, may be to distinguish spurious signals from authentic ones.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale for claim 8 is applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights