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 (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to for the following informalities:
In Claim 9, remove the comma between the words “further” and “comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9, 11, 21-22, and 24 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 8, the claim recites the limitation “the second raw radar data” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the second radar data.”
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the moving target.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the moving object.”
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the moving target.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the moving object.”
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the second raw radar data” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the second radar data.”
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “the moving target.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the moving object.”
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “the moving target.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the moving object.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaPat (US 2018/0003802).
Regarding Claim 1, LaPat discloses:
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”), 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 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.).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996).
Regarding Claim 2, LaPat teaches: wherein coherently processing, via the processor, the second radar data comprises:
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 … ([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”).
LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Itoh teaches: … by mixing the second radar data with a complex sine wave … (Itoh [p. 1192]: equation (3) showing the signal represented as a sine wave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LaPat and mix the second radar data with a complex sine wave to correct for Doppler shift, as taught by Itoh. Representing radar signals using sine waves is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and modifying LaPat with the teaching of Itoh comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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. 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) in view of Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996) as applied to Claim 2 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 – but Sarkar 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 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. 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) 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”), 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 does not explicitly teach – but Nicolls 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 to modify LaPat and use a radar reflector and an array of receivers, as taught by Nicolls. 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 predictable results, and it is beneficial for 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 to modify LaPat and coherently process radar data for each of a plurality of receive channel, as taught by Nicolls. 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 target 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 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. 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 to modify LaPat and perform data interpolation, as taught by Nicolls. 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 target 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 to modify LaPat, and perform frame rotations to determine object azimuth and elevation angles, as taught by Nicolls. 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 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. 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 to modify LaPat and use the residual phase values to calibrate the receive channels, as taught by Nicolls. 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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat (US 2018/0003802) in view of Nicolls (US 2018/0083357), as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996).
Regarding Claim 15, LaPat teaches: wherein coherently processing the second radar data comprises: correcting the second radar data for changes in Doppler shift of the moving object … that is a function of a radial velocity and radial acceleration of the 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”).
LaPat does not explicitly teach – but Itoh teaches: … by mixing the second radar data with a complex sine wave … (Itoh [p. 1192]: equation (3) showing the signal represented as a sine wave).
The rationale to modify LaPat with the teachings of Itoh would persist from Claim 2.
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 would persist 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 Nicolls (US 2018/0083357) and Itoh (Itoh et al., “Motion compensation for ISAR via centroid tracking,” July 1996), 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”).
Conclusion
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. 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 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648