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 5-5-2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-5-2-26 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s amendment and argument that the prior art does not disclose the array having a plurality of transmit receive pairs associated with range vectors, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Crouch discloses various individual transmit/receive pairs each receiving different data and vectors based on their positioning (para. 59, and 63-64). In addition, the applicant appears to provide a copy/paste of amended claims 1 and 15 and argues that Crouch and Wu do not disclose it without providing any detail or evidence as to what is not disclosed.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0099817, filed December 23, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 15, Crouch discloses an automotive radar system comprising:
at least a first radar sensor a second radar sensor, and a processor (Crouch, Fig. 2)
wherein each of the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor includes an antenna array having a plurality of transmit-receive antenna pairs each associated with a respective range vector (Crouch, ¶59, 63-64);
where each of the first and second radar sensors is arranged to transmit a radar signal over a radar bandwidth where each of the first and second radar sensor is arranged to determine respective ranges to one or more detected targets [[(140)]], where each determined range is associated with a complex value in a range vector (Crouch, ¶75),
where the processor is arranged to determine a difference in the ranges determined by the first radar sensor and by the second radar sensor (Crouch, ¶78 where range difference is spatial matching)
where the processor is arranged to convert the difference in ranges to an intermediate frequency, phase value by relating the difference in ranges to the radar bandwidth (Crouch, ¶79 ideal phase shifts in place of ratio);
and where the processor is arranged to adjust the complex values in the range vectors by the IF phase value and determine an angle to at least one of the detected targets based on the adjusted complex values in the range vectors from each of the first and second radar sensors (Crouch, ¶82-83).
Crouch fails to explicitly disclose using the ratio and adjusting complex values however Crouch disclose adjusting pertinent values of the data to provide more accurate measurements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to address the complex values and use the ratio since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
As per claim 2, Crouch further discloses the automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 1, where each of the first and second radar sensors sensor (110, 120) comprises an antenna array [[(210)]] configured with a plurality of transmit-receive antenna pairs [[(210)]], where each of the transmit-receive antenna pair pairs is associated with a respective range vector (Crouch, ¶69).
As per claim 9, Crouch further discloses The automotive radar system according to claim 1,where each of the first and second radar sensors is arranged to transmit a frequency modulated continuous wave, radar signal over the radar bandwidth (Crouch, ¶53).
As per claim 10, Crouch further discloses the automotive radar system according to claim 1,where each of the first and second radar sensors sensor (110,120) is arranged to determine respective radial velocities to the one or more detected targets [[(140)]], where each pair of range and radial velocity is associated with a complex value [[(Vmn)]] in a range-Doppler matrix (Crouch, ¶59).
As per claim 12, as best understood by examiner, Crouch further discloses the automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 1,where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the difference in the ranges in dependence of a pre-determined radial velocity (Crouch, ¶59 using radial velocity data).
As per claim 14, Crouch further discloses a vehicle comprising the system of claim 1 (Crouch, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3-8, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Wu, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0094397, filed July 27, 2021.
As per claim 3, Crouch discloses the system of claim 2 but fails to disclose using a matrix to represent the antenna elements.
Wu teaches a matrix representation of the array elements for processing (¶39).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use matrices, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Crouch. The examiner notes it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how the data should be processed using known algorithms.
As per claim 4, Crouch as modified by Wu discloses The automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 3, where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the angle [[(a)]] by performing a phase alignment over the matrix V (405), where each row is rotated in dependence of the first element [[(Vx1)]] in the row (Wu, ¶50-51).
As per claim 5, Crouch as modified by Wu further discloses the automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 3, where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the angle [[(a)]] by applying a pre-determined calibration phase rotation to at least some of the elements of the matrix (Wu, ¶71 where phase shifts are known).
As per claims 6 and 7, Crouch as modified by Wu further discloses the automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 3, where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the angle [[(a)]] to at least one of the detected targets [[(140)]] by zero-padding the rows of the matrix V (405) in dependence of the [[IF]] intermediate frequency phase value [[(CDIF)]] for each radar sensor with respect to a pre-determined reference radar sensor (Wu, ¶50).
It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine whether zero padding of elements should be done in rows or columns depending on the spare antenna arrangement.
As per claim 8, Crouch as modified by Wu further discloses the automotive radar system [[(100)]] according to claim 3, where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the angle [[(a)]] to at least one of the detected targets [[(140)]] by a two-dimensional Discrete Fourier Transform, DFT, of the matrix V (405) after at least phase adjustment by at least the [[IF]] intermediate frequency phase value [[(CDIF)]] for each of the first and second radar sensors (Crouch, ¶60 and Wu, ¶55).
As per claim 11, Crouch as modified by Wu further discloses the automotive radar system according to claim 1,where the processor [[(130)]] is arranged to determine the difference in the ranges as a difference between a weighted sum of the magnitudes of the complex values in the range vector for each radar sensor (Wu, ¶64 using weighting).
As per claim 13, Crouch as modified by Wu further discloses the automotive radar system according to claim 1,where the first radar sensor [[(110)]] and the second radar sensor [[(120)]] constitute front corner radar sensors of a vehicle [[(101)]], where the radar sensors (110, 120) are configured with an overlapping field-of-view, FoV, (135) in a forward direction [[(F)]] of the vehicle (Crouch, ¶4 and Wu, ¶3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the sensors face forward in order to gain the obvious benefit of sensing possible collisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights