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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 have been fully considered and are found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues in the Remarks, filed on 11/24/2025, on page 12, “A. Emadi Does Not Teach At Least a Search Area Centered Around The Expected Range Prior to Target Tracking”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the “a search area” can be the “an expected range”. Therefore, Emadi’s determination of “the expected range” is indeed “a search area center around the expected range”. Furthermore, the limitation of “the updated expected range” in claim 1 lacks clear antecedent basis and has been given a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, see rejection below for details. Secondly, the Applicant’s argument of performing the features of claim 1 “prior to target tracking” are found to be unpersuasive. Target tracking is a process where even the determination of a point in a first scan and then the expected range of the point in a second scan is indeed “target tracking”. Furthermore, even if the target tracking is performed over a series of several steps, the “prior to target tracking” can be considered an initial portion of the target tracking where the identification and filtering of the point is performed at some “initialization stage” of the overall target tracking stage. Such an initialization stage would come prior to an “association stage” of the overall target tracking (see paragraph 0004 of Emadi). The only support provided by the Applicant’s disclosure in regards to “prior to target tracking” is in paragraph 0090 which recites, “This representative point is then used as input for subsequent steps, such as validation and target tracking, in the radar system.”. This statement provide no clear definition of “target tracking” and simply recites that “subsequent steps” include “target tracking”. Again, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language of claim 1, the “prior to target tracking” can be any time during the whole target tracking stage as target tracking is a series of steps. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments in reference to claim 1 are found to be unpersuasive and the Examiner asserts that Emadi does indeed disclose all the limitations of claim 1 based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues in the Remarks, filed on 11/24/2025, on page 13, “B. Emadi's Termination Conditions Does Not Anticipate Pre- Tracking Identification of False Targets as Recited in Claim 1”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the argument above, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language of claim 1, the “prior to target tracking” identification of false targets can be any time during the whole target tracking stage as tracking is a series of steps. The Applicant’s disclosure again does not give any clear definition of “target tracking”, furthermore, even the selection of a point in a first scan and then the determination of the expected range of the point in the second radar scan is indeed “target tracking”. Therefore, the Applicant’s interpretation that the filtering is performed prior any kind of “target tracking” is unpersuasive under such an interpretation.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues in the Remarks, filed on 11/24/2025, on page 13, “C. Quoted Portions of the Cited Prior Art Refer to Tracking Stage,”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the argument above, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language of claim 1, the “target tracking” can be any time during the whole target tracking stage as tracking is a series of steps. The Applicant’s disclosure does not give any clear definition of “target tracking”, furthermore, even the selection of a point in a first scan and then the determination of the expected range of the point in the second radar scan is indeed “target tracking”. Therefore, the Applicant’s interpretation that the filtering is performed prior to any kind of “target tracking” is unpersuasive under such an interpretation.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues in the Remarks, filed on 11/24/2025, on page 13, “D. Examiner’s Quoted Passages Do Not Explain Which Portions of Emadi Correspond to the Claimed Limitations”. The Examiner diligently provided clear citations and reference to Figures in the Office Action to provide support for the limitation. The Examiner has attempted to shorten and clarify the citations for the Applicant.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant argues on page 15 of Remarks, “Emadi, does not disclose the amended limitation reciting "update the expected range based on identified factors that impact precision of range measurements obtained, wherein the factors are determined based on environmental conditions and hardware limitations." (Amended Claim 5 (emphasis added)). This amended limitation introduces additional features beyond the scope of Claim 1 (and previously presented Claim 5) that are not suggested or taught by Emadi.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is claiming a very broad limitation of “based on identified factors that impact precision of range measurements obtained, wherein the factors are determined based on environmental conditions and hardware limitations.”. Emadi discloses this limitation as drafted based on its broadest reasonable interpretation. The adaptive gating size is indeed an updated expected range and the sensor measurements used to determine this adaptive gating size are identified factors. Also, these identified factors are indeed “based on environmental conditions and hardware limitations” as the sensor measurements are based on target positions which are “environmental conditions” and the sensor measurements are based on the hardware having the power and memory to perform sensing and store data which are “hardware limitations”. If the hardware of the system has no power, no adaptive gating is performed thus based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, this feature is indeed disclosed. Furthermore, Emadi discloses in paragraph 0004 that a purpose of determine a computed (i.e. adaptive) gating size is to save power and resources. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s broad limitation of “based on identified factors that impact precision of range measurements obtained, wherein the factors are determined based on environmental conditions and hardware limitations” to be disclosed by Emadi.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the updated expected range" in "identify a search area within the second radar scan, the search area centered around the updated expected range;". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no updated has been performed in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear what “the updated expected range” is referring to. Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emadi et al. (US 20210199792 A1), hereinafter Emadi.
Regarding claim 1, Emadi discloses
A radar system for identifying and filtering false targets represented in radar data (see Abstract), comprising:
a radar transmitter configured to emit radar signals (see Fig. 1A, radar 122 to emit radar signals);
a radar receiver configured to collect reflected radar signals from objects within an environment (see Fig. 1, radar 122 to receive the emitted radar signals which are reflected off of objects);
a processor (see paragraph 0052 which depicts the method steps implemented by the radar system, “FIGS. 5A-5B is an example logic flow diagram illustrating a method 500 performed by a processing unit on the vehicle to initialize a radar tracking process using adaptive gating and then generate a tracking trajectory using empirical gating, according to an embodiment of the present technology. One or more of the processes or steps 502-526 of method 500 may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transitory, tangible, machine-readable media (e.g., memory 704 and/or storage 706 in FIG. 7) that when run by one or more processors (e.g., processor 702 in FIG. 7) may cause the one or more processors to perform one or more of the processes 502-526. Further, one or more of the processes or steps may be omitted, combined, and/or performed in a different sequence as desired.”); and
a memory device including instructions that, when executed by the processor, enables the radar system (see paragraph 0052, memory 704) to:
obtain a first radar scan (see Fig. 1A, obtaining first data scan 131a);
select a point in the first radar scan (see Fig 1A, selecting target points 132a);
validate the point based on a Doppler frequency shift associated with the point and a change in range of the point (see paragraph 0040, “Referring back to FIG. 2A, once the tracking process enters the tracking stage 213, the gating size may be determined based on a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix that is computed from the Kalman filtering output. For example, during the tracking stage 213 when a number of prior radar measurements of the locations and Doppler velocity of the target point is available, the radar unit may employ Kalman filtering to produce a joint probability distribution D predicting possible locations and/or the Doppler velocities of the target points at the next timestamp. Specifically, a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix may be calculated based on the joint probability distribution, providing a measure of the distance between the observed location of target points and the distribution D. Thus, a validation gate in the form of an ellipsoid in position and Doppler may be defined by the eccentricity of the data points, which may be calculated as √{square root over ((1−b.sup.2/a.sup.2)}, where a is defined by the greater value of the range gate dr, and the azimuth gate rd.sub.a (r is the range radius and d.sub.a is the angular gate), and b is defined by the smaller value of the range gate and the azimuth gate. Therefore, the eccentricity is defined and the elliptical gate is applied all over the radar detection points.”);
obtain a second radar scan (see Fig. 1A, radar scan 131b);
determine an expected range of the point in the second radar scan (see Fig. 1A, determining expected range of the target points to be within range 150 in second radar scan 131B, further see paragraphs 0027-0030, further see paragraph 0045 for support);
identify a search area within the second radar scan, the search area centered around the updated expected range (See Fig. 1A, range 150 is a “search area” which is “centered around the expected range”. Data from this range is continued to be obtained, further see paragraph 0060-0067, “At step 520, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the computed gating size during the tracking stage…”, further see paragraph 0030 for support, “Traditionally, the size of the range gate associated with the radar range 150 may be determined empirically, and a fixed gating size may be used for the range 150, e.g., 50 m, 60 m, etc.”);
identify a matching point within the search area in the second radar scan (See Fig. 1A, radar scan 131b identifies target points corresponding to the same object from the first radar scan 131a and these points are within the range 150 (i.e. “the search area”));
determine a range threshold based on the Doppler frequency shift, a time period between the first and the second radar scans, and a range difference between the range of the point in the first radar scan and the range of the matching point (see method 5B, step 518, compute gating size change in range and doppler shift between time of multiple scans, further see paragraph 0058, “Then at step 515, an adaptive gating size is computed based on the displacement and Doppler change, e.g., according to Eq. (1). At step 517, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the adaptive gating size.”, note: “adaptive gating size”); and
determine whether the point is a valid target based on the range threshold (see Fig. 5B, determine whether conditions 522 or 524 are met to determine validity of the target, further see paragraph 0061, “At step 522, the radar unit may determine whether a termination condition is met. For example, the termination module 314 shown in FIG. 4B may determine whether any of the termination conditions is met.”; Note” this termination is based on the range threshold “gating size”),
thereby identifying and filtering false targets prior to target tracking (see paragraph 0035, “The radar unit may terminate the current track and may optionally continue obtaining radar scans to establish new tracks.”, where after a track is terminated, new tracks may be established where the termination is therefore done “prior to target tracking”).
Regarding claim 2, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to select the point in the first radar scan, further enables the radar system to:
identify a potential target within the radar data based on one or more predetermined characteristics comprising at least one of signal strength associated with the potential target (see Fig. 1A; NOTE: based on the BRI of this claim language, using radar to identify potential targets within the radar data is “based on signal strength associated with a potential target” as a target must reflect back the signal (i.e. have some signal strength) to be considered a target and therefore is “based on” signal strength), size of the potential target, or shape of the potential target.
Regarding claim 3, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to validate the point, further enables the radar system to:
compare the Doppler frequency shift of the point to a predetermined Doppler frequency shift threshold (see Fig. 4B initialization constraint on doppler change step 408, further see paragraph 0049); and
compare the change in range of the point to a predetermined range change threshold (see Fig. 4B initialization constraint on displacement (i.e. change in range), further see paragraph 0048);
wherein the point is considered valid when the Doppler frequency shift and the change in range satisfy respective predetermined thresholds (see paragraph 0049, “At block 408, the initialization constraint on the Doppler change of target points is evaluated, e.g., √{square root over ((x.sub.j−x.sub.j-1).sup.2+(y.sub.j−y.sub.j-1).sup.2)}≤γ.sub.Av.sub.d.sub.j+γ.sub.B. The output of block 408, e.g., a true or false binary signal, may be sent to the AND gate 409. Thus, the AND gate 409 may send a positive signal to the counter 410 when both initialization constraints on displacement and Doppler are satisfied. In this case, the counter 410 may increment by one, and keep track of the total number of instances when the initialization constraints are met.”).
Regarding claim 4, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to determine the change in the range of the point, further enables the radar system to:
calculate a difference between the range of the point in the first radar scan and a range of a same point in a previous radar scan (see method steps of Fig. 5A, step 508 of determine displacement (i.e. change in range) between radar scans);
compare the calculated difference with a predetermined range change threshold (see method steps in Fig. 5A, step 510, further see paragraph 0057, “At step 510, the radar unit determines whether a tracking initialization condition is met based on the displacement and Doppler change between the two consecutive timestamps. For example, the radar unit may determine whether the two inequalities in Eq. (2) are both satisfied for the displacement √{square root over ((x.sub.j−x.sub.j-1).sup.2+(y.sub.j−y.sub.j-1).sup.2)} and the Doppler change v.sub.d.sub.j−v.sub.d.sub.j-1.”); and
validate the point when the calculated difference is within the predetermined range change threshold (see paragraph 0058, “At step 512, when the initialization condition is not met yet, method 500 proceeds to step 514, at which the radar unit determines that the tracking is still in the initialization phase. Then at step 515, an adaptive gating size is computed based on the displacement and Doppler change, e.g., according to Eq. (1). At step 517, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the adaptive gating size.”).
Regarding claim 5, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to determine the expected range of the point in the second radar scan, further enables the radar system to:
calculate an expected range of the point based on the Doppler frequency shift associated with the point, the time period between the first and the second radar scans, and the range of the point in the first radar scan (see paragraph 0057, “At step 510, the radar unit determines whether a tracking initialization condition is met based on the displacement and Doppler change between the two consecutive timestamps. For example, the radar unit may determine whether the two inequalities in Eq. (2) are both satisfied for the displacement √{square root over ((x.sub.j−x.sub.j-1).sup.2+(y.sub.j−y.sub.j-1).sup.2)} and the Doppler change v.sub.d.sub.j−v.sub.d.sub.j-1.”);
update the expected range based on identified factors that impact precision of range measurements obtained (see paragraph 0058, “At step 512, when the initialization condition is not met yet, method 500 proceeds to step 514, at which the radar unit determines that the tracking is still in the initialization phase. Then at step 515, an adaptive gating size is computed based on the displacement and Doppler change, e.g., according to Eq. (1). At step 517, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the adaptive gating size.”, where the adaptive gating size is an update based on the range measurements and “impacts precisions” of range measurements obtained as it determined whether targets are valid for tracking), wherein the factors are determined based on environmental conditions (Note: the updated expected range (i.e. adapted gating size) is “based on environment conditions” as the targets positions are used to determine this adaptive gating size and the target’s positions are indeed ”environmental conditions” based on the BRI of “environmental conditions”) and hardware limitations (Note: the updated expected range (i.e. adapted gating size) is “based on hardware limitations” as the targets positions are used to determine this adaptive gating size and the target’s positions only determined if the hardware has sufficient power and memory to do).
Regarding claim 6, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor to identify the matching point, further enables the radar system to:
compare points in the second radar scan within the search area established based on the expected range (see paragraph 0040, “Referring back to FIG. 2A, once the tracking process enters the tracking stage 213, the gating size may be determined based on a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix that is computed from the Kalman filtering output. For example, during the tracking stage 213 when a number of prior radar measurements of the locations and Doppler velocity of the target point is available, the radar unit may employ Kalman filtering to produce a joint probability distribution D predicting possible locations and/or the Doppler velocities of the target points at the next timestamp. Specifically, a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix may be calculated based on the joint probability distribution, providing a measure of the distance between the observed location of target points and the distribution D. Thus, a validation gate in the form of an ellipsoid in position and Doppler may be defined by the eccentricity of the data points, which may be calculated as √{square root over ((1−b.sup.2/a.sup.2)}, where a is defined by the greater value of the range gate dr, and the azimuth gate rd.sub.a (r is the range radius and d.sub.a is the angular gate), and b is defined by the smaller value of the range gate and the azimuth gate. Therefore, the eccentricity is defined and the elliptical gate is applied all over the radar detection points.”);
evaluate similarity between the compared points and the point in the first radar scan, based on respective Doppler frequency shifts (see paragraph 0040, “Referring back to FIG. 2A, once the tracking process enters the tracking stage 213, the gating size may be determined based on a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix that is computed from the Kalman filtering output. For example, during the tracking stage 213 when a number of prior radar measurements of the locations and Doppler velocity of the target point is available, the radar unit may employ Kalman filtering to produce a joint probability distribution D predicting possible locations and/or the Doppler velocities of the target points at the next timestamp. Specifically, a Mahalanobis likelihood distance matrix may be calculated based on the joint probability distribution, providing a measure of the distance between the observed location of target points and the distribution D. Thus, a validation gate in the form of an ellipsoid in position and Doppler may be defined by the eccentricity of the data points, which may be calculated as √{square root over ((1−b.sup.2/a.sup.2)}, where a is defined by the greater value of the range gate dr, and the azimuth gate rd.sub.a (r is the range radius and d.sub.a is the angular gate), and b is defined by the smaller value of the range gate and the azimuth gate. Therefore, the eccentricity is defined and the elliptical gate is applied all over the radar detection points.”); and
select the point in the second radar scan with a highest similarity to the point in the first radar scan as the matching point (see paragraph 0041, “During the tracking stage 213, the radar unit may further monitor whether a termination condition is satisfied at 214. For example, when the radar unit fails to locate the target points associated with a track for a minimum number of consecutive timestamps, e.g., 3, 4, 5, etc., the radar unit may consider the track is finished, e.g., the target object may be out of the range. In some embodiments, the radar unit may continue obtaining radar scans for at least a minimum number of timestamps during the tracking stage 213 before determining whether to terminate a track, e.g., at least 5, 6, 7, timestamps, etc.”, where ensuring that the track is associated with the target point for a minimum number of frames is determining a point “with a highest similarity”).
Regarding claim 7, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the range threshold is based on the Doppler frequency shift, the time period between the first and the second radar scans, and the range difference between the range of the point in the first radar scan and the range of the matching point (see paragraph 0036-0037, “adaptive grating size” is based on range displacement and doppler change between timestamps, further see paragraph 0038, “In some embodiments, the radar unit may determine and monitor how many times the initialization constraint in Eq. (2) has failed to be satisfied. For example, if the Eq. (2) has been failed for a certain number of times, it means the tracking process remains in the initialization stage for a number of timestamps (e.g., 9, 10, 12, etc.). In that case, when the radar unit has been staying in the initialization stage for the maximum number of trying, the radar unit may terminate the tracking to save resources for starting a new track.:).
Regarding claim 8, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enables the radar system to:
compare the range threshold to a predetermined validity criterion (see paragraph 0057, “At step 510, the radar unit determines whether a tracking initialization condition is met based on the displacement and Doppler change between the two consecutive timestamps. For example, the radar unit may determine whether the two inequalities in Eq. (2) are both satisfied for the displacement √{square root over ((x.sub.j−x.sub.j-1).sup.2+(y.sub.j−y.sub.j-1).sup.2)} and the Doppler change v.sub.d.sub.j−v.sub.d.sub.j-1.”);
determine that the point is a valid target when the range threshold satisfies the predetermined validity criterion (see paragraphs 0058-0059, “At step 512, when the initialization condition is not met yet, method 500 proceeds to step 514, at which the radar unit determines that the tracking is still in the initialization phase. Then at step 515, an adaptive gating size is computed based on the displacement and Doppler change, e.g., according to Eq. (1). At step 517, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the adaptive gating size…At step 512, when the initialization condition is met, method 500 proceeds to step 516, at which the radar unit determines to enter a tracking stage. At step 518, a gating size is computed using Mahalanobis distance and the Doppler change.”); and
discard the point as a false target when the range threshold does not satisfy the predetermined validity criterion (see Fig. 5B, termination of the track at step 526), wherein the predetermined validity criterion includes at least one of a maximum allowable range difference, a minimum required Doppler frequency shift, or a combination of range and Doppler frequency shift constraints (see paragraph 0060-0061, “At step 520, the radar unit may continue obtaining sensor data with the computed gating size during the tracking stage…At step 522, the radar unit may determine whether a termination condition is met. For example, the termination module 314 shown in FIG. 4B may determine whether any of the termination conditions is met. At step 524, when the termination condition is met, e.g., the radar unit has missed observations of the target point for at least a minimum number of consecutive scans, and the radar unit has produced a number of scans during the tracking stage, method 500 proceeds to step 526 to terminate the track.”, further see for support paragraph 0041, “During the tracking stage 213, the radar unit may further monitor whether a termination condition is satisfied at 214. For example, when the radar unit fails to locate the target points associated with a track for a minimum number of consecutive timestamps, e.g., 3, 4, 5, etc., the radar unit may consider the track is finished, e.g., the target object may be out of the range. In some embodiments, the radar unit may continue obtaining radar scans for at least a minimum number of timestamps during the tracking stage 213 before determining whether to terminate a track, e.g., at least 5, 6, 7, timestamps, etc.”).
Regarding claim 9, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enables the radar system to:
validate a plurality of corresponding matching points in a plurality of subsequent scans (see Figs. 4B and 4C, further see paragraphs 0050-0051, “The counter value and the counting history may be sent to blocks 413 and 414. At block 413, for example, if at least the initialization constraint is satisfied for at least two (or any other pre-defined number) consecutive timestamps, block 413 sends a positive signal to the AND gate 415. At block 414, if the initialization constraint is satisfied for at least a portion of the observed timestamps (e.g., 3 out of 4, 4 out of 5, etc.), block 414 outputs a positive signal to the AND gate 415. In some embodiments, the gate 415 may be an OR gate. The AND gate 415 may then generate a signal to turn on the switch to turn off the initialization flag 416, e.g., when the initialization constraint is satisfied for at least two consecutive timestamps, and/or 3 out of 4 timestamps. When the initialization constraint has not been satisfied for the conditions required by block 413 or 414, the initialization flag may be maintained such that the radar unit remains at an initialization stage. Block 416 may then output an initialization on-off indication 420.”);
determine a positive identification count of scans having a validated point (see Figs. 4B and 4C, further see paragraphs 0050-0051,);
determine the positive identification count exceeds a positive identification threshold see Figs. 4B and 4C, further see paragraphs 0050-0051,; and
determine the point is a valid target based on the positive identification count see Figs. 4B and 4C, further see paragraphs 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 10, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enables the radar system to:
validate a position of the matching point by matching coordinates of the point with coordinates of the matching point (see paragraphs 0054-0057, “At step 504, the location coordinates and Doppler velocity of the target points are determined from the sensor data. For example, the measurement of the coordinates (e.g., (x.sub.j, y.sub.j)) and the Doppler velocities (e.g., v.sub.d.sub.j) of target points may be determined at timestamp t.sub.1...At step 506, previously stored location coordinates and Doppler velocity of the target points at a previous time may be retrieved. For example, the measurement of the coordinates (e.g., (x.sub.j-1, y.sub.j-i)) and the Doppler velocities (e.g., v.sub.d.sub.j-1) of target points from timestamp t.sub.j-1 may be retrieved…At step 508, a displacement and a Doppler change between the current timestamp and the previous timestamp is computed. For example, the displacement √{square root over ((x.sub.j−x.sub.j-1).sup.2+(y.sub.j−y.sub.j-1).sup.2)} and the Doppler change v.sub.d.sub.j−v.sub.d.sub.j-1 may be computed between timestamps t.sub.j and t.sub.j-1…At step 510, the radar unit determines whether a tracking initialization condition is met based on the displacement and Doppler change between the two consecutive timestamps.”).
Regarding claim 11, Emadi further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enables the radar system to:
classify a special case as a valid target, wherein the special case includes a point that would otherwise be identified as a false target (see paragraph 0036-0037, where the use of “adaptive gating size” identifies valid targets which may otherwise be identified as false targets when using a fixed gating size; therefore such a method implements “classify a special case as a valid target, wherein the special case includes a point that would otherwise be identified as a false target” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited sections and rationale as claims 1 and 5 are applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited sections and rationale as claims 1, 5 and 6 are applied.
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 NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648