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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20070040728) in view of Raphaeli et al (US 7023938) and Kapoor et al (US 7023938).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Nishimura teaches a radar system comprising a processor and memory (abstract) configured to: transmit radar signals using a plurality of transmit channels (abstract) receive radar signals reflected from at least one object with a receive channel (abstract); determine whether a dominant target is present in a sensing environment of the radar system based on the received radar signals (para 76, “ the first or second window functions may be selectively applied depending on a required frequency band as long as the first window function is applied to a lower frequency range (near range) in the frequency spectrum and the second window function is applied to a higher frequency range (far range) therein”); select one of a first window function and a second window function based on whether the dominant target is present in the sensing environment (para 76, “ the first or second window functions may be selectively applied depending on a required frequency band as long as the first window function is applied to a lower frequency range (near range) in the frequency spectrum and the second window function is applied to a higher frequency range (far range) therein”); perform a Doppler fast Fourier transform (FFT) procedure with the selected window function from the first and second window functions (fig 13, discrete Fourier transform), when used in performing the Doppler FFT procedure; and determine information about the object based on performing the Doppler FFT procedure, the information including at least one of a location, a size, an orientation, a velocity, and an acceleration of the at least one object (para 77, “the current location of each target can be sufficiently predicted by performing the beam scanning at the azimuth of the beam and detecting the target each time the azimuth of the beam“).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Raphaeli teaches performing binary phase modulation (BPM) using different BPM codes for each of the plurality of transmit channels (page 10 lines 17-25). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura to include performing binary phase modulation (BPM) using different BPM codes for each of the plurality of transmit channels because it is merely a substitution of the signal used in Nishimura for the transmitted signal of Raphaeli to yield a predictable radar transmitter.
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Kapoor teaches the first and second window functions having different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) degradations (col 14, lines 5-13, “a variety of other windows that may be used as well. It is seen that among the above windows the Hanning window displays the best side-lobe suppression. However, it also requires 2 feedback taps and has the largest SNR degradation in white noise of 10 log.sub.106=7.78 dB. In comparison, the last two windows have higher side-lobes but require only a single feedback tap and have white noise SNR degradations of 10 log.sub.101.25=0.97 dB and 10 log.sub.102=3 dB respectively”). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura to include the first and second window functions having different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) degradations because it is merely a substitution of the window functions used of Nishimura with the window functions of Kapoor to yield a predictable radar system.
Regarding claim 2 and 9, Kapoor teaches the SNR degradation of the first window function is less than the SNR degradation of the second window function (col 14, lines 5-13, “a variety of other windows that may be used as well. It is seen that among the above windows the Hanning window displays the best side-lobe suppression. However, it also requires 2 feedback taps and has the largest SNR degradation in white noise of 10 log.sub.106=7.78 dB. In comparison, the last two windows have higher side-lobes but require only a single feedback tap and have white noise SNR degradations of 10 log.sub.101.25=0.97 dB and 10 log.sub.102=3 dB respectively”). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura to include the SNR degradation of the first window function is less than the SNR degradation of the second window function because it is merely a substitution of the window functions used of Nishimura with the window functions of Kapoor to yield a predictable radar system.
Regarding claim 3 and 10, Nishimura teaches the first window function is selected by the processor for performing the Doppler FFT in response to determining that the dominant target is not present in the sensing environment of the radar system; and the second window function is selected by the processor for performing the Doppler FFT in response to determining that the dominant target is present in the sensing environment of the radar system (para 77)
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Searchy et al (US 20170160380).
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Searchy teaches the processor and memory are further configured to perform a residue estimation and subtraction technique (REST) to remove residue resulting in response to determining that the dominant target is present in the sensing environment of the radar system (para 32). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor to include the processor and memory are further configured to perform a residue estimation and subtraction technique (REST) to remove residue resulting in response to determining that the dominant target is present in the sensing environment of the radar system because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method of determine a target of Nishimura with the method to determine a target of Searchy to yield a predictable target determiner.
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Raphaeli teaches resulting from performing BPM using different BPM codes for each of the plurality of transmit channels (page 10 lines 17-25). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura to include performing binary phase modulation (BPM) using different BPM codes for each of the plurality of transmit channels because it is merely a substitution of the signal used in Nishimura for the transmitted signal of Raphaeli to yield a predictable radar transmitter.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20220373661).
Regarding claim 5 and 12, Lee teaches the radar system is located in a vehicle and the information about the object is communicated to a vehicle system that controls at least one of a steering system, a braking system, and a throttle system of the vehicle based on the information about the object (para 1). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor to include the radar system is located in a vehicle and the information about the object is communicated to a vehicle system that controls at least one of a steering system, a braking system, and a throttle system of the vehicle based on the information about the object because it would allow the vehicle to avoid a collision.
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Lee teaches the vehicle system includes at least one of an autonomous driving system and a driver assistance system (para 1). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor to include the vehicle system includes at least one of an autonomous driving system and a driver assistance system because it would allow the vehicle to avoid a collision.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Simic et al (US 20090268788).
Regarding claim 7 and 14, Simic teaches the processor and memory are further configured to determine whether the dominant target is present in the sensing environment of the radar system by: determining a total amplitude of received signals in a current receive bin and a noise estimate from a previous frame; and determining that the dominant target is present in response to a ratio of the total amplitude to the noise estimate being greater a predetermined ratio threshold (para 118 and 119). It would have been obvious to modify Nishimura in view of Raphaeli and Kapoor to include the processor and memory are further configured to determine whether the dominant target is present in the sensing environment of the radar system by: determining a total amplitude of received signals in a current receive bin and a noise estimate from a previous frame; and determining that the dominant target is present in response to a ratio of the total amplitude to the noise estimate being greater a predetermined ratio threshold because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method of determine a target of Nishimura with the method to determine a target of Simic to yield a predictable target determiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648