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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Malik (US PAT 10481244).
Regarding claim 2, Arkind teaches A method for detecting
transmitting a first transmission signal comprising a first number of chirps (8:35-36 “the transmitter generates a FMCW signal (i.e. chirps) using the signal generator and VCO.”);
receiving a first reflected signal of the first transmission signal reflected from an object (fig 2),
the first reflected signal comprising a set of range bins associated with the object (16:52-54 “nce all chirps in the frame are processed, the range bins are read column by column and processed using FFT or DFT to generate velocity (Doppler) data”);
transmitting a second transmission signal comprising a second number of chirps greater than the first number of chirps (claim 1 “perform said data processing using two different frames, including a short low resolution coarse frame and a longer high resolution fine frame that are transmitted consecutively”; 13:1-3 “increase radial velocity (i.e. Doppler) resolution by increasing the duration of the frame, i.e. transmitting a larger number of chirps;”),
the second transmission signal focused on the set of range bins associated with the object (4:16-20 “Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame. Using the TOI information obtained in the previous coarse frame, only a subset of the received data is processed”);
receiving a second reflected signal of the second transmission signal reflected from the object (8:31-32 “The receive circuit comprises receive antenna 310 for receiving reflections from the target 308”);
extracting range and velocity information associated with the object from the second reflected signal based on the second number of chirps in the second transmission signal (9:2-4 “Such a system requires a plurality of transmitter and receiver channels to achieve desired range, azimuth, elevation and velocity.”; fig 10); and
Arkind does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Malik teaches classifying the object based on the range and velocity information associated with the second reflected signal (1:32-37 “The radar sensor computes a Fourier transformation from the received radar signal in a range and Doppler direction, as a result of which a two-dimensional Fourier transformation is obtained. This can be used to compute a two-dimensional power spectrum. These power spectra are computed for different distances from the object and are subsequently used to classify the objects.”; 5:7-11 “The absolute speed of the object or the absolute acceleration of the object is a more explicit feature than the relative speed of the object or the relative acceleration of the object and is therefore advantageous when assigning the object to the particular class.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Malik with the teachings of Arkind. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously target identification (Malik 2:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Malik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classification to a radar target. Since both Malik and Arkind disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the classifying the object comprises: calculating a first velocity resolution of the object that corresponds to the first number of chirps in the first transmission signal; and calculating a second velocity resolution of the object that corresponds to the second number of chirps in the second transmission signal, the second velocity resolution having a value less than that of the first velocity resolution (Arkind 13:24-28 “Range resolution is controlled by setting the number of samples per chirp. Similarly, velocity resolution is controlled by setting the number of chirps per frame.”; Abstract “A low resolution ‘coarse’ frame is first transmitted that is fully processed in real time. Based on the results of the processing of the coarse frame, a plurality of targets of interest (TOIs) in the scene representing a subset of the received data is determined. Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame”). .
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 2, wherein: the object is identified in the first reflected signal in a first duration that corresponds to the first number of chirps in the first transmission signal (Arkind 19:36-41 “performing range processing on each coarse frame on the fly while each coarse frame is transmitted, and processing said coarse radar return data received at a low resolution to extract one or more targets of interest (TOIs) having energy above a threshold”), and the object is classified in a second duration that corresponds to the second number of chirps in the second transmission signal (Malik 8:1-3 “FIG. 7 likewise shows step S5, which outputs the warning signal after classification has taken place.”), the second duration being greater than the first duration (Arkind 4:15-17 “Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Malik with the teachings of Arkind. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously target identification (Malik 2:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Malik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classification to a radar target as described. Since both Malik and Arkind disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2. Arkind further teaches an autonomous driving system (3:4-5 “autonomous vehicles”) and transmitting within a field of view (fig 8).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art teaches The autonomous driving system of claim 20, wherein: the first radar signal is transmitted at a first scanning rate based on the first number of chirps in the first radar signal, the second radar signal is transmitted at a second scanning rate based on the second number of chirps in the second radar signal, the second scanning rate being different from the first scanning rate (Arkind 12:65-67 “Several techniques for increasing resolution for the 4D data include: (1) increasing range resolution by increasing the bandwidth of the transmitted signal; (2) increase radial velocity (i.e. Doppler) resolution by increasing the duration of the frame, i.e. transmitting a larger number of chirps”), the object is identified in the first reflected signal in a first duration that corresponds to the first number of chirps in the first radar signal, and the object is classified in a second duration that corresponds to the second number of chirps in the second radar signal (Malik 8:1-3 “FIG. 7 likewise shows step S5, which outputs the warning signal after classification has taken place.”), the second duration being different from the first duration (Arkind 4:15-17 “Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Malik with the teachings of Arkind. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously target identification (Malik 2:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Malik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classification to a radar target as described. Since both Malik and Arkind disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Malik (US PAT 10481244) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pokrass et al. (US-20170371030 hereinafter Pokrass).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the classifying the identified object comprises calculating a velocity resolution of the object associated with the second reflected signal (Arkind 3:47-51 “Doppler processing is performed by performing a Fourier transform across the time dimension, and its resolution is limited by the Coherent Processing Interval (CPI). i.e. the total transmission time used for Doppler processing.”; 11:5-6 “Note that the velocity resolution improves as the length of the measurement cycle is increased.”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pokrass teaches wherein the velocity resolution is inversely proportional to a total time for a chirp sequence (0012 “Accordingly, while the maximum detectable range is directly proportional to the duration of each chirp, the maximum detectable velocity is inversely proportional to the frame duration”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pokrass with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the detectable range (Pokrass 0012). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pokrass merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular chirp transmissions. Since both the cited prior art and Pokrass disclose similar radar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Malik (US PAT 10481244) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US PAT 10261179 hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Davis teaches wherein: the transmitting the first transmission signal comprises performing a first scan at a first beam scanning rate based on the first number of chirps in the first transmission signal, and the transmitting the second transmission signal comprises performing a second scan at a second beam scanning rate based on the second number of chirps in the second transmission signal, the second beam scanning rate being less than the first beam scanning rate (20:10-13 “For different frames, or even within a frame, different radar scans with short and long dwell times can be used”; 15-65-67 “The present invention provides a method for resolving range and Doppler aliasing, comprising: a. Performing 2 or more consecutive scans”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Davis with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference within the radar system (Davis 10:55-65). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Davis merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular chirp features. Since both the cited prior art and Davis disclose similar radar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Malik (US PAT 10481244) and further in view of Davis et al. (US PAT 10261179 hereinafter Davis) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Gassend et al. (US 20200142041 hereinafter Gassend).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 6,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Davis wherein the first scan and the second scan are performed at a same detection range (Gassend 0128 “or example, LIDAR 200 may be configured to obtain two separate scans (e.g., the first scan of block 404 and the second scan of block 406) of the same FOV during a same scanning time period by interchangeably transmitting light beams out of optical windows 252 and 254 (e.g., based on the rotation of mirror 244).”; 0043 “In a third example, where system 100 is configured as a RADAR device, transmitter 120 may include one or more antennas, waveguides, and/or other type of RADAR signal emitters 122, that are configured to emit and/or direct modulated radio-frequency (RF) signals toward an environment of system 100.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gassend with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce noise (Gassend 0062). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gassend merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular scanning features. Since both the cited prior art and Gassend disclose similar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the first scan and the second scan are performed based on a set of scan parameters that is adjustable to produce a plurality of transmission signals (Arkind 13:25-27 “Range resolution is controlled by setting the number of samples per chirp. Similarly, velocity resolution is controlled by setting the number of chirps per frame.”) through a beam steering antenna (Gassend 0056 “transmitter 120 can be operated according to a phased array configuration or other type of beam steering configuration.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gassend with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce noise (Gassend 0062). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gassend merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular scanning features. Since both the cited prior art and Gassend disclose similar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the set of scan parameters comprises one or more of a total angle of a scan area, a beam width of each of the plurality of transmission signals, a scan angle of each of the plurality of transmission signals, indication of the first number of chirps in the first transmission signal, indication of the second number of chirps in the second transmission signal, a chirp time, a chirp segment time, or a chirp slope (Gassend 0024 “With this arrangement, the first scan and the second scan may be generally similar to one another due to an overlap of the respective scanning time periods and the respective FOVs associated with each scan.” [corresponds to a scan area]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gassend with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce noise (Gassend 0062). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gassend merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular scanning features. Since both the cited prior art and Gassend disclose similar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10, 12-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Meissner et al. (US 20210209453 hereinafter Meissner).
Regarding claim 10, Arkind teaches A beam steering radar system, comprising: a radar module comprising a beam steering antenna (11:65-67 “The antenna array of the radar generates a beam 13”), a transceiver (fig 4), and a controller configured to cause the beam steering radar system to (fig 3):
perform a first scan in a surrounding environment of the beam steering radar system with a first number of chirps in a first radio frequency (RF) signal, receive a return signal identifying an object in the surrounding environment, the return signal comprising a set of range bins associated with the object, perform a second scan of a portion of the surrounding environment focused on the set of range bins associated with the object with a second number of chirps in a second RF signal (Abstract “A low resolution ‘coarse’ frame is first transmitted that is fully processed in real time. Based on the results of the processing of the coarse frame, a plurality of targets of interest (TOIs) in the scene representing a subset of the received data is determined. Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame.”; 16:55-60 “Once all chirps in the frame are processed, the range bins are read column by column and processed using FFT or DFT to generate velocity (Doppler) data which is written back into the memory replacing the original range data for a particular bin. Thus, range processing is performed per chirp and Doppler processing is performed per range bin.”),
the second number of chirps being greater than the first number of chirps (claim 1 “perform said data processing using two different frames, including a short low resolution coarse frame and a longer high resolution fine frame that are transmitted consecutively”; 13:1-3 “increase radial velocity (i.e. Doppler) resolution by increasing the duration of the frame, i.e. transmitting a larger number of chirps;”),
extract range and velocity information associated with the object based on the second RF signal (9:2-4 “Such a system requires a plurality of transmitter and receiver channels to achieve desired range, azimuth, elevation and velocity.”; fig 10); and
Arkind does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Meissner teaches a perception module comprising a machine learning-trained classifier configured to classify the object based on the extracted range and velocity information (Meissner 0049 “Range Doppler maps may be used as a basis for various methods for detecting, identifying, and classifying radar targets”; 0026 “FIG. 14 illustrates a further example for filtering (denoising) a range map or a range Doppler map by way of convolutional neural networks (CNNs).”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Meissner with the teachings of Arkind. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve resource efficiency and computing power needed for signal processing (Miyaoka 0089). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Meissner merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classification to a radar target. Since both Meissner and Arkind disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first velocity resolution of the object that corresponds to the first number of chirps in the first RF signal, and obtain a second velocity resolution of the object that corresponds to the second number of chirps in the second RF signal, the second velocity resolution differs from the first velocity resolution (Arkind 13:24-28 “Range resolution is controlled by setting the number of samples per chirp. Similarly, velocity resolution is controlled by setting the number of chirps per frame.”; Abstract “A low resolution ‘coarse’ frame is first transmitted that is fully processed in real time. Based on the results of the processing of the coarse frame, a plurality of targets of interest (TOIs) in the scene representing a subset of the received data is determined. Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame”).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 12, wherein the second velocity resolution has a value less than that of the first velocity resolution (Arkind 19:36-41 “performing range processing on each coarse frame on the fly while each coarse frame is transmitted, and processing said coarse radar return data received at a low resolution to extract one or more targets of interest (TOIs) having energy above a threshold”).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 10, wherein the perception module is further configured to: detect the object in a first duration that correspond to the first number of chirps in the first RF signal (Arkind 19:36-41 “performing range processing on each coarse frame on the fly while each coarse frame is transmitted, and processing said coarse radar return data received at a low resolution to extract one or more targets of interest (TOIs) having energy above a threshold”), and classify the object in a second duration that corresponds to the second number of chirps in the second RF signal (Meissner fig 19).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Meissner with the teachings of Arkind. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve resource efficiency and computing power needed for signal processing (Miyaoka 0089). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Meissner merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classification to a radar target. Since both Meissner and Arkind disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 14, wherein the second duration is greater than the first duration (Arkind 4:15-17 “Then a longer high-resolution ‘fine’ frame is transmitted and processed using the information obtained in the previous coarse fame”).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the transceiver to perform the first scan and the second scan based on a set of scan parameters that is adjustable to produce a plurality of RF signals through the beam steering antenna (Arkind 13:25-27 “Range resolution is controlled by setting the number of samples per chirp. Similarly, velocity resolution is controlled by setting the number of chirps per frame.”).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 18, wherein the set of scan parameters includes one or more of a total angle of a scan area, a beam width of each of the plurality of RF signals, a scan angle of each of the plurality of RF signals, indication of the first number of chirps in the first RF signal, indication of the second number of chirps in the second RF signal, a chirp time, a chirp segment time, or a chirp slope (Arkind 8:14-17 “In one sweep of the radar operation, the frequency of the transmit signal varies linearly with time. This kind of signal is also known as a chirp signal. The transmit signal 12 (solid line) sweeps through a frequency of Δf in one chirp duration.”).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Meissner et al. (US 20210209453 hereinafter Meissner) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US PAT 10261179 hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 10,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Davis teaches wherein the transceiver is configured to: perform the first scan at a first beam scanning rate based on the first number of chirps in the first RF signal, and perform the second scan at a second beam scanning rate based on the second number of chirps in the second RF signal, the second beam scanning rate being different from the first beam scanning rate (20:10-13 “For different frames, or even within a frame, different radar scans with short and long dwell times can be used”; 15-65-67 “The present invention provides a method for resolving range and Doppler aliasing, comprising: a. Performing 2 or more consecutive scans”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Davis with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference within the radar system (Davis 10:55-65). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Davis merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular chirp features. Since both the cited prior art and Davis disclose similar radar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 16, wherein the first beam scanning rate is greater than the second beam scanning rate (Davis 20:10-13 “For different frames, or even within a frame, different radar scans with short and long dwell times can be used”; 15-65-67 “The present invention provides a method for resolving range and Doppler aliasing, comprising: a. Performing 2 or more consecutive scans”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Davis with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference within the radar system (Davis 10:55-65). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Davis merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular chirp features. Since both the cited prior art and Davis disclose similar radar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind et al. (US PAT 11808881 hereinafter Arkind) in view of Meissner et al. (US 20210209453 hereinafter Meissner) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Pokrass et al. (US-20170371030 hereinafter Pokrass).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The beam steering radar system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to determine a velocity resolution of the object associated with the second RF signal (Arkind 3:47-51 “Doppler processing is performed by performing a Fourier transform across the time dimension, and its resolution is limited by the Coherent Processing Interval (CPI). i.e. the total transmission time used for Doppler processing.”; 11:5-6 “Note that the velocity resolution improves as the length of the measurement cycle is increased.”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pokrass teaches wherein the velocity resolution is inversely proportional to a total time for a chirp sequence (0012 “Accordingly, while the maximum detectable range is directly proportional to the duration of each chirp, the maximum detectable velocity is inversely proportional to the frame duration”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pokrass with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the detectable range (Pokrass 0012). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pokrass merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular chirp transmissions. Since both the cited prior art and Pokrass disclose similar radar systems for vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
LEE (US 20200324713) discloses “A vehicular camera apparatus includes a lens unit configured to form an optical path to recognize a front first region and an optical path to recognize at least one second region closer thereto than the first region, and an image sensor configured to generate a first image data corresponding to the first region and a second image data corresponding to the second region based on light that has passed through the lens unit. The lens unit forms a plurality of channels corresponding to the first region and the at least one second region. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648