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
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 04/22/2026 is entered.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are amended.
Claims 2, 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that Itoh Eq. (3) is “merely a representation of the received signal in complex form” and “not an instruction to perform any mixing operation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Itoh teaches applying a phase correction to the complex sinusoidal received signal of Eq. (3), which is done by combining (i.e., mixing) the received signal with a correction term that is itself a complex sine wave ([p. 1192]: Eqs. (3)-(5); [p. 1193]: “the range and phase data stored in memory are corrected”).
Applicant appears to argue that Itoh’s method uses centroid tracking, second-order least squares estimate, and range/phase correction, rather than mixing radar data with a complex sine wave. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that centroid tracking and second-order least squares are how Itoh estimates the radial motion ([p. 1192-1193]), and Itoh then corrects the complex radar data’s range and phase as explained above.
Applicant appears to argue that Itoh’s complex sine wave is merely mathematical notation and does not teach mixing a complex sine wave with radar data. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Itoh not only represents the received signal as a complex sine wave, but further corrects the phase of the received signal, which is done by combining (i.e., mixing) the received signal with a correction term that is itself a complex sine wave ([p. 1192]: Eqs. (3)-(5); [p. 1193]).
Applicant appears to argue that claim 1 requires generating/synthesizing a separate complex sine wave. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., synthesizing a separate complex sine wave) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant appears to argue the Itoh does not teach using radial velocity and radial acceleration in a complex sine wave for Doppler correction. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Itoh models the target’s radial motion through the third derivative, which includes velocity, acceleration, and jerk ([p. 1192]). Itoh then uses this estimate of the radial motion to correct/compensate the range and phase of the received signal ([p. 1191]).
Additionally, Examiner asserts that LaPat discloses performing range-rate compensation, which accounts for Doppler (radial velocity) and quadratic phase (radial acceleration), using matched filtering ([0049]; [0059]). Matched filtering typically involves multiplying a received signal by a complex sine wave (F. E. Nathanson, J. P. Reilly, and M. N. Cohen, “Radar Design Principles: Signal Processing and the Environment,” 2nd ed., 1999, Chs. 8 and pgs. 360-362). Kelly (E. J. Kelly and R. P. Wishner, “Matched-Filter Theory for High-Velocity, Accelerating Targets,” 1965), which is cited by in Radar Design Principles, discloses using matched filtering to account for the Doppler effect in moving objects. The matched filter involves multiplying the received signal by a complex sine wave that is a function of radial velocity and acceleration ([pgs. 58-62]: Eqs. (6)-(9) and (39)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.
Claims 1 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “correcting, via the processor, the second radar data for changes in Doppler shift of the moving object by mixing the second radar data with a complex sine wave that is a function of a radial velocity and radial acceleration of a corresponding moving object.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the moving object” in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear is if “the moving object” and “a corresponding moving object” refer to the same object. For examination purposes, “the moving object” and “a corresponding moving object” are interpreted as referring to the same object. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation in Claim 14.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) in view of Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996).
Regarding Claim 1, LaPat teaches:
A method of processing radar data, the method comprising:
incoherently processing, via a processor, first radar data and, therefrom, identifying, via the processor, incoherent detections that exceed a noise threshold as a function of range and Doppler velocity ([0054]: “At block 308, the set of range-Doppler arrays in the Doppler domain may be non-coherently integrated (NCI) ... the non-coherent integration may be performed prior to a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) processing being performed”; Examiner note: performing CFAR on range-Doppler data is tantamount to noise thresholding as a function of range and Doppler velocity);
grouping, via the processor, incoherent detections, from amongst the identified incoherent detections, into a group of incoherent detections that correlate statistically to each other in range and Doppler velocity ([0055]: “a list of target detections may be generated based on the non-coherent integration.”; “...as illustrated in FIG. 3 at block 306, the dotted rectangle indicates a target detection for one frequency step. In some embodiment, the dotted rectangle region may be referred to as a range swath.”), and generating, via the processor, a fitted model for the group of detections, wherein the fitted model is defined by a range and Doppler space specifically reflective of the range and Doppler velocities of the incoherent detections in the group ([0056]: “for each target detection, a range swath may be extracted from the set of range-Doppler arrays.”; Examiner note: the range swaths define a range-Doppler space corresponding to a target detection, which is tantamount to generating a “fitted model”); and
coherently processing, via the processor, second radar data over a plurality of range and Doppler spaces limited by the range and Doppler space corresponding to the fitted model associated with the group of incoherent detections ([0007]: “The set of range swaths may be coherently integrated by using FJB processing to generate clutter suppressed HRR profiles.”; [0057]: “FJB processing may be performed on the set of range swaths”),
correcting, via the processor, the second radar data for changes in Doppler shift of the moving object … that is a function of a radial velocity and a radial acceleration of a corresponding moving object ([0059]: “The range-rate compensation may account for range walk, Doppler and quadratic phase compensation in the pulse returns.”; [0075]: “Each set of range-swaths may be range-rate compensated”), and
identifying, via the processor, from the coherently processed second radar data, a radar signal peak as a function of a range and Doppler velocity of the corresponding moving object ([0061]: “In FIG. 4B, the compensated and noncoherently integrated target profile 408 includes a target detection 409,” Figs. 4A, 4B showing target detection peak 407 and 409, respectively.).
LaPat further teaches the range-rate compensation maybe performed as a part of matched filter processing ([0049]; [0059]), which typically involves multiplying a received complex signal by a complex sine wave, but does not explicitly teach correcting the second radar data by mixing the second radar data with a complex sine wave, as recited in Claim 1.
However, Itoh is in the field of radar target tracking and teaches:
correcting radar data for changes in Doppler shift of a moving object by mixing the radar data with a complex sine wave that is a function of radial velocity and radial acceleration of a corresponding moving object (Itoh [p. 1191]: “The basic scheme is to estimate the radial motion of the target centroid and to compensate in such a way that range and Doppler of the centroid are kept constant.”; [p. 1192]: Eqs. (3)-(5); “The movement of the target is assumed not to change rapidly, so that derivatives higher than order d3r(t)/dt3 may be neglected.”; [p. 1193]: “the range and phase data stored in memory are corrected”; Examiner note: Eq. (3) shows the received signal is a complex sine wave. Itoh corrects the range and phase of the received signal based on the radial motion of the target, and correcting the phase of a complex sine wave is done by combining (i.e., mixing) it with a correction term that is itself a complex sine wave. The correction is a function of radial velocity and acceleration because Itoh models the target’s motion through the third derivative of range (i.e., velocity, acceleration, and jerk).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and correct the radar data by mixing the radar data with a complex sine wave, as taught by Itoh, with a reasonable expectation of success. LaPat already teaches range-rate compensation as a function of radial velocity and acceleration, and Itoh teaches carrying out such a correction by combining the received signal with a complex sine wave to correct the received signal’s phase. Applying Itoh’s known correction technique to LaPat’s range-rate compensation would yield the predictable result of improved motion compensation, thereby improving moving object detection and tracking.
Regarding Claim 3, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Itoh teaches: wherein the complex sine wave is also a function of higher time derivatives of the radial position of the moving object (Itoh [p. 1192]: “velocities, accelerations, jerks”; “The movement of the target is assumed not to change rapidly, so that derivatives higher than order d3r(t)/dt3 may be neglected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and correct for changes in Doppler shift by using a sine wave that is a function of higher time derivatives of the radial position of the moving object, as taught by Itoh, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including jerk in the Doppler correction is beneficial for improving tracking accuracy and enabling a continuous and stable estimation process (Itoh [p. 1197]).
Regarding Claim 4, LaPat teaches: wherein, when the moving object is a known object, the radial velocity and radial acceleration of the moving object are known ([0049]: “the matched filter may be matched or generated using a coarse range-rate estimate from a narrowband tracker.”; Examiner note: LaPat uses a previous range-rate estimate from the narrowband tracker to perform range-rate compensation, which account for Doppler (radial velocity) and quadratic phase (acceleration).).
Regarding Claim 5, LaPat teaches: wherein, when the moving object is not previously known, the radial velocity and radial acceleration of the moving object are estimated from the fitted model ([0057]: “FJB processing may be performed on the set of range swaths to generate a high range resolution profile.” [0059]: “range-rate compensation”; Examiner note: the high range resolution profile includes Doppler and acceleration values that are then corrected by range-rate compensation.).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) and Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarkar (Sarkar et al., “The interlaced chirp Z transform,” 2006).
Regarding Claim 6, LaPat teaches: the method further comprising:
demodulating, via the processor, the Doppler shift corrected second radar data in each of a number of range bins ([0051]: “At block 304, the FJB-PD pulse returns may be range-rate compensated and organized into a set of range-Doppler arrays.”; [0053]: “the range-Doppler array in the Doppler domain may have a range bin value (n)”); and
filtering, sampling and remixing, each via the processor, the demodulated second radar data … ([0007]: “matched filter processing”).
LaPat does not explicitly teach: filtering, sampling and remixing the second radar data a plurality of times.
However, Sarkar is in the field of signal processing teaches: … a plurality of times, wherein remixing the second radar data for each of the number of range bins comprises multiplying, via the processor, the demodulated, filtered and sampled data by a sine wave that is a function of the central Doppler velocity of the given range bin, and wherein with each remixing, the size of the range bins decreases (Sarkar [abstract]: “several CZT’s over increasingly smaller ranges are required to obtain denser frequency samples where needed”; “the previous samples are included with the new ones”; [Section 1]: “ zooming onto the desired part of the spectrum”; [Section 2]: showing the signals represented as sine waves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and filter, sample, and remix the second radar data a plurality of times using sine waves to represent signals and wherein with each remixing, the size of the range bins decreases, as taught by Sarkar, with a reasonable expectation of success. Representing radar signals using sine waves is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and decreasing the size of the range bin with each remixing is beneficial for improving frequency sampling and improving computational efficiency (Sarkar [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 7, LaPat teaches: the method further comprising:
adjusting, via the processor, the range measurement of the demodulated second radar data to correct for time delays due to the movement of the moving object between radar pulses ([0059]: “The range-rate compensation may account for range walk”).
Claims 8-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) and Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicolls (US 2018/0083357).
Regarding Claim 14, LaPat discloses:
A radar system comprising:
…
a transmitter ([0027]: “transmitted and received via an antenna”);
a … receiver … ([0027]: “transmitted and received via an antenna”);
a memory and a processor configured to execute an algorithm embodied in a code stored in the memory, wherein, when the processor executes the algorithm embodied in the code stored in the memory ([0080]: “computer 600”), the radar system is configured to:
incoherently process first radar data and, therefrom, identify incoherent detections that exceed a noise threshold as a function of range and Doppler velocity ([0054]: “At block 308, the set of range-Doppler arrays in the Doppler domain may be non-coherently integrated (NCI) ... the non-coherent integration may be performed prior to a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) processing being performed”; Examiner note: performing CFAR on range-Doppler data is tantamount to noise thresholding as a function of range and Doppler velocity);
group incoherent detections, from amongst the identified incoherent detections, into a group of incoherent detections that correlate statistically to each other in range and Doppler velocity ([0055]: “a list of target detections may be generated based on the non-coherent integration.”; “...as illustrated in FIG. 3 at block 306, the dotted rectangle indicates a target detection for one frequency step. In some embodiment, the dotted rectangle region may be referred to as a range swath.”), and generate a fitted model for the group of detections, wherein the fitted model is defined by a range and Doppler space specifically reflective of the range and Doppler velocities of the incoherent detections in the group ([0056]: “for each target detection, a range swath may be extracted from the set of range-Doppler arrays.”; Examiner note: the range swaths define a range-Doppler space corresponding to a target detection, which is tantamount to generating a “fitted model”); and
coherently process second radar data over a plurality of range and Doppler spaces limited by the range and Doppler space corresponding to the fitted model associated with the group of incoherent detections ([0007]: “The set of range swaths may be coherently integrated by using FJB processing to generate clutter suppressed HRR profiles.”; [0057]: “FJB processing may be performed on the set of range swaths”),
correct the second radar data for changes in Doppler shift of the moving object … that is a function of a radial velocity and a radial acceleration of a corresponding moving object ([0059]: “The range-rate compensation may account for range walk, Doppler and quadratic phase compensation in the pulse returns.”; [0075]: “Each set of range-swaths may be range-rate compensated”), and
identify from the coherently processed second radar data a radar signal peak as a function of a range and Doppler velocity of a corresponding moving object ([0061]: “In FIG. 4B, the compensated and noncoherently integrated target profile 408 includes a target detection 409,” Figs. 4A, 4B showing target detection peak 407 and 409, respectively.),
LaPat further teaches the range-rate compensation maybe performed as a part of matched filter processing ([0049]; [0059]), which typically involves multiplying a received complex signal by a complex sine wave, but does not explicitly teach correcting the second radar data by mixing the second radar data with a complex sine wave, as recited in Claim 1.
However, Itoh is in the field of radar target tracking and teaches:
correcting radar data for changes in Doppler shift of a moving object by mixing the radar data with a complex sine wave that is a function of radial velocity and radial acceleration of a corresponding moving object (Itoh [p. 1191]: “The basic scheme is to estimate the radial motion of the target centroid and to compensate in such a way that range and Doppler of the centroid are kept constant.”; [p. 1192]: Eqs. (3)-(5); “The movement of the target is assumed not to change rapidly, so that derivatives higher than order d3r(t)/dt3 may be neglected.”; [p. 1193]: “the range and phase data stored in memory are corrected”; Examiner note: Eq. (3) shows the received signal is a complex sine wave. Itoh corrects the range and phase of the received signal based on the radial motion of the target, and correcting the phase of a complex sine wave is done by combining (i.e., mixing) it with a correction term that is itself a complex sine wave. The correction is a function of radial velocity and acceleration because Itoh models the target’s motion through the third derivative of range (i.e., velocity, acceleration, and jerk).).
The rationale to modify LaPat with the teachings of Itoh persists from Claim 1.
LaPat does not explicitly teach: a radar reflector and an array of receivers.
However, Nicolls is in the field of radar target tracking and teaches:
a radar reflector (Nicolls [0005]: “trough reflector”); and
an array of receivers where each receiver is associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of receive channels ([0005]: “phased array”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and use a radar reflector and an array of receivers, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying the system of LaPat with the specific transmitting and receiving equipment of Nicolls comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of enabling applications such as celestial object tracking.
Regarding Claims 8 and 21, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches: coherently processing, via the processor, the second radar data for each of a plurality of receive channels (Nicolls [0055]: “N-channel beamformer”; [0057]: “Coherent processing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and coherently process radar data for each of a plurality of receive channel, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Coherent processing radar data for a plurality of channels is beneficial for improving signal to noise ratio (SNR) which increases detectability for radar applications (Nicolls [0057]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches:
the method further, comprising:
for each pair of receive channels that make up the plurality of receive channels, determining, via the processor, a phase difference between the coherently processed radar data of the two receive channels that make up each pair of receive channels (Nicolls [0030]: “Using multiple reflectors, each reflector having one or more phased arrays, the system can measure angles using radar or radio interferometry.”);
calculating, via the processor, visibility values for each pair of receive channels (Nicolls [0030]: “radio interferometry”; [0058]: “Coherent summation refers to summing being done in the complex domain where phases are preserved”);
synthesizing, via the processor, a distribution of receive power on the sky corresponding to the position of the moving object as a function of the inverse Fourier Transform of the visibility values (Nicolls [0030]: “radio interferometry”; [0042]: “FIG. 8 shows the angular plot of the sky looking upwards”; [0072]: “Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar”; Examiner note: using the inverse Fourier Transform is standard in radio interferometry);
determining, via the processor, a maximum peak signal in the synthesized distribution of receive power on the sky (Nicolls [0012]: “a projection of the imaging field-of-view on the sky.”; [0026]: “illuminates debris and satellites for detection”; [0030]: “radio interferometry”; Examiner note: peak detection is standard for object detection and power distributions/images); and
determining, via the processor, azimuth and elevation values of the moving object based on the maximum peak value (Nicolls [0012]: “a projection of the imaging field-of-view on the sky.”; [0026]: “angle”; [0030]: “the system can measure angles using radar or radio interferometry”; Examiner note: azimuth and elevation angles are standard in satellite tracking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and perform radio interferometry, which includes determining phase differences and visibility values, analyzing received power using inverse Fourier Transforms, and determining azimuth and elevation angles of objects by identifying peak values of received signals, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. The techniques of radio interferometry are considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and modifying LaPat to perform radio interferometry is beneficial for enabling applications such as celestial object tracking.
Regarding Claims 10 and 23, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches: wherein determining, via the processor, the maximum peak signal comprises:
performing, via the processor, data interpolation between data samples (Nicolls [0057]: “interpolation can be used to improve the statistical range measurement accuracy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and perform data interpolation, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Interpolation is considered ordinary and well known in the art and is beneficial for improving measurement accuracy (Nicolls [0057]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches: wherein determining, via the processor, the azimuth and elevation values of the moving object comprises:
a frame rotation, via the processor, of the coordinate value corresponding to the maximum peak signal in the synthesized distribution of receive power on the sky (Nicolls [0012]: “a projection of the imaging field-of-view on the sky.”; [0026]: “angle”; [0030]: “the system can measure angles using radar or radio interferometry”; Examiner note: tracking an object from a sky projection would require converting pixel/X-Y coordinates of the sky projection into azimuth and elevation coordinates, which is standard in satellite tracking.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat, and perform frame rotations to determine object azimuth and elevation angles, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Azimuth and elevation angles are considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and are commonly used in celestial/satellite applications. Frame rotations are also considered ordinary and well-known, and are necessary to convert pixel or X-Y coordinates values of sky images into azimuth and elevation coordinates.
Regarding Claims 12 and 25, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches: further comprising:
calculating, via the processor, for each of the plurality of receive channels, a residual phase value, wherein the residual phase value for a given receive channel is a function of an expected phase value of the receive channel relative to an expected phase value of a reference receive channel, and a function of a complex spectral value of the receive channel relative to a complex spectral value of the reference receive channel (Nicolls [0076]: “Now the measured phase of the received signals is compared to the predicted phase from the model for each element.”; [0005]: “digitized coupled signal”; [0061]: “Fast Fourier Transform”), and wherein the expected phase value of the given receive channel relative to the expected phase value of the reference receive channel is a function of the physical distance between a receiver of the given receive channel and a receiver of the reference receive channel, and a wavelength of the radar beam carrier frequency (Nicolls [0037]: “the elements may be spaced close to a half-wavelength”; [0076]: “an electromagnetic model of the system, which included the geometry of the elements and the 1D trough, may be generated based on measuring the position of the elements from a reference point.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and calculate residual phase values as a function of expected phase values, complex spectral values, physical receiver location, and wavelength of a carrier frequency, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Calculating residual phase values using the above quantities is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and determining residual phase values is beneficial for correcting phase errors and thereby improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claims 13 and 26, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls teaches: further comprising:
calibrating, via the processor, one or more of the plurality of receive channels based on the corresponding residual phase value (Nicolls [0077]: “These deviations on an element-by-element basis provide the phase distortion or modification that occur due to the electronics and other factors. These deviation values, called calibration values...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LaPat and use the residual phase values to calibrate the receive channels, as taught by Nicolls, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using residual phase values to calibrate receive channels is considered ordinary and well-known in the art and is beneficial for correcting phase errors and thereby improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claim 16, LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Itoh teaches: wherein the complex sine wave is also a function of higher time derivatives of the radial position of the moving object (Itoh [p. 1192]: “velocities, accelerations, jerks”).
The rationale to modify LaPat with the teachings of Itoh persists from Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17, LaPat teaches: wherein, when the moving object is a known object, the radial velocity and radial acceleration of the moving object are known ([0049]: “the matched filter may be matched or generated using a coarse range-rate estimate from a narrowband tracker.”).
Regarding Claim 18, LaPat teaches: wherein, when the moving object is not previously known, the radial velocity and radial acceleration of the moving object are estimated from the fitted model ([0057]: “FJB processing may be performed on the set of range swaths to generate a high range resolution profile.” [0059]: “range-rate compensation”).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) in view of Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996) and Nicolls (US 2018/0083357), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Sarkar (Sarkar et al., “The interlaced chirp Z transform,” 2006).
Regarding Claim 19, LaPat teaches: wherein the radar system is further configured to:
demodulate the Doppler shift corrected second radar data in each of a number of range bins ([0051]: “At block 304, the FJB-PD pulse returns may be range-rate compensated and organized into a set of range-Doppler arrays.”; [0053]: “the range-Doppler array in the Doppler domain may have a range bin value (n)”); and
filter, sample and remix the demodulated second radar data … ([0007]: “matched filter processing”).
LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Sarkar teaches: … a plurality of times, wherein remixing the second radar data for each of the number of range bins comprises multiplying the demodulated, filtered and sampled data by a sine wave that is a function of the central Doppler velocity of the given range bin, and wherein with each remixing, the size of the range bins decreases (Sarkar [abstract]: “several CZT’s over increasingly smaller ranges are required to obtain denser frequency samples where needed”; “ the previous samples are included with the new ones”; [Section 1]: “ zooming onto the desired part of the spectrum”; [Section 2]: showing the signals represented as sine waves).
The rationale to modify LaPat with the teachings of Sarkar would persist from Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, LaPat teaches: wherein the radar system is further configured to:
adjust the range measurement of the demodulated second radar data to correct for time delays due to the movement of the moving object between radar pulses ([0059]: “The range-rate compensation may account for range walk”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Each of US 2022/0137236, US 2021/0072381, US 2005/0275726, and US 2003/0048214 are of interest for disclosing systems that perform Doppler or motion compensation by mixing a received signal with a complex/sinusoid signal.
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 NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights