DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on July 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1, 11, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinger et al (US 2017/0212215 A1) in view of Huang et al (CN 114124290 B) and Lamendola et al (US 8427363 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hellinger teaches a radar emulator for testing a radar sensor in a testing environment with a potential distortion source, the radar emulator comprising [0027 for vehicle radar sensor system that includes a radar sensor unit having a radar transmitter, and 0037]
a radar signal generator configured to generate at least one radar signal [0027],
a radar signal receiver configured to receive at least one response radar signal [0027],
a radar signal processor configured to process the at least one response radar signal received, and [0028 for processor, 0042]
an input interface via which an approximate location of the radar sensor or a distortion source is input [0029 for calibration program for calibrating the radar sensor unit],
and wherein the radar signal processor is configured to determine at least one characteristic of the at least one response radar signal received [0042-0043],
based on which a detected location of an emitter of the response radar signal is determined [0042-0043 for compares the locations and distances of the targets determined by the processor to the predefined],
and wherein the radar signal processor is configured to map the approximate location of the radar sensor input via the input interface or the approximate location of the distortion source input via the input interface to the detected location by comparing the deviation to an existing value [0029 for user interface, 0036 for memory of the diagnostic device, an offset to this distance can also be determined by the radar].
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects, on subsequent testing of the radar sensor, caused by the distortion source detected within the testing.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects, on subsequent testing of the radar sensor, caused by the distortion source detected within the testing [page 12, last paragraph for mapping the radar positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system, analyzing and processing the radio signals to obtain radio positioning coordinates].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Huang for the purpose to obtain radio positioning coordinates, and mapping the radio positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system (Huang, page 12, last paragraph).
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach and to determine, based on the deviation, whether the emitter of the response radar signal is the radar sensor to be tested or the distortion source.
Lamendola has a method includes tagging a track as a live track if a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold (abstract) and teaches and to determine, based on the deviation, whether the emitter of the response radar signal is the radar sensor to be tested or the distortion source [col 6, lines 25-35 for a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Lamendola for the purpose to assigning a likelihood that the track has been correctly tagged. (Lamendola, col 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 11, Hellinger teaches a method of evaluating a testing environment, the method comprising [0027 for vehicle radar sensor system that includes a radar sensor unit having a radar transmitter, and 0037]:
generating at least one radar signal [0027];
receiving at least one response radar signal [0027];
processing the at least one response radar signal received [0028 for processor, 0042];
inputting an approximate location of a radar sensor or a distortion source [0049-0050];
determining at least one characteristic of the at least one response radar signal received, based on which a detected location of an emitter of the response radar signal is determined [0042-0043 for compares the locations and distances of the targets determined by the processor to the predefined]
and mapping the approximate location of the radar sensor input via the input interface or the approximate location of the distortion source input via the input interface to the detected location by comparing the deviation to an existing value [0029 for user interface, 0036 for memory of the diagnostic device, an offset to this distance can also be determined by the radar].
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach determining a deviation between the approximate location of the radar sensor input via the input interface or the approximate location of the distortion source input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches determining a deviation between the approximate location of the radar sensor input via the input interface or the approximate location of the distortion source input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal [page 12, last paragraph for mapping the radar positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system, analyzing and processing the radio signals to obtain radio positioning coordinates].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Huang for the purpose to obtain radio positioning coordinates, and mapping the radio positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system (Huang, page 12, last paragraph).
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach and determining, based on the deviation, whether the emitter of the response radar signal is the radar sensor to be tested or the distortion source.
Lamendola has a method includes tagging a track as a live track if a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold (abstract) and teaches and to determine, based on the deviation, whether the emitter of the response radar signal is the radar sensor to be tested or the distortion source [col 6, lines 25-35 for a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Lamendola for the purpose to assigning a likelihood that the track has been correctly tagged. (Lamendola, col 6, lines 30-40).
Regrading Claim 19, Hellinger teaches a radar emulator for testing a radar sensor in a testing environment with a potential distortion source [0027 for vehicle radar sensor system that includes a radar sensor unit having a radar transmitter, and 0037],
the radar emulator comprising a radar signal generator configured to generate at least one radar signal [0027],
a radar signal receiver configured to receive at least one response radar signal [0027],
a radar signal processor configured to process the at least one response radar signal received [0028 for processor, 0042],
and an input interface via which an approximate location of the radar sensor or a distortion source is input [0029 for calibration program for calibrating the radar sensor unit],
wherein the radar signal processor is configured to [0027]:
determine at least one characteristic of the at least one response radar signal received, based on which a detected location of an emitter of the response radar signal is determined [0042-0043 for compares the locations and distances of the targets determined by the processor to the predefined];
map the approximate location of the radar sensor input via the input interface or the approximate location of the distortion source input via the input interface to the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal [0029 for user interface, 0036 for memory of the diagnostic device, an offset to this distance can also be determined by the radar].
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach determine, based on a deviation between the approximate location input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches determine, based on a deviation between the approximate location input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal [page 12, last paragraph mapping the radar positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system, analyzing and processing the radio signals to obtain radio positioning coordinates].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Huang for the purpose to obtain radio positioning coordinates, and mapping the radio positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system (Huang, page 12, last paragraph).
Hellinger fails to explicitly teach and to determine, based on a deviation between the approximate location input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal, a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects.
Lamendola has a method includes tagging a track as a live track if a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold (abstract) and teaches determine, based on a deviation between the approximate location input via the input interface and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal, a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects [col 6, lines 25-35 for a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Lamendola for the purpose to assigning a likelihood that the track has been correctly tagged. (Lamendola, col 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 2 and 12, Hellinger fails to explicitly teach the radar signal processor is configured to determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches the radar signal processor is configured to determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment [page 15, and Step 22 for an emission source covariance matrix is listed based on a confidence correction algorithm].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Huang for the purpose to obtain radio positioning coordinates, and mapping the radio positioning coordinates into the receiving source coordinate system (Huang, page 12, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Hellinger fails to explicitly teach the radar signal processor is configured to determine the location of the distortion source in the testing environment in case the approximate location of the radar sensor and the detected location deviate from each other by less than a predefined value.
Lamendola has a method includes tagging a track as a live track if a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold (abstract) and teaches the radar signal processor is configured to determine the location of the distortion source in the testing environment in case the approximate location of the radar sensor and the detected location deviate from each other by less than a predefined value [col 6, lines 25-35 for a tagging statistic is greater than a tagging statistic threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar emulation techniques, as disclosed by Hellinger, further including the position calculations as taught by Lamendola for the purpose to assigning a likelihood that the track has been correctly tagged. (Lamendola, col 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Hellinger teaches the radar emulator comprises an output interface connected with the radar signal processor [0029-0030].
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Hellinger teaches the output interface is configured to display a location of the radar sensor based on the detected location [0048 for elevation and azimuth are selectively displayed on the diagnostic device as one of the values is out of range].
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, Hellinger teaches the output interface is configured to display a location of the distortion source in the testing environment [0029 for touch screen that displays information related to the radar sensor unit and allows selection of various programs].
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, Hellinger teaches the output interface is configured to display a representation of the testing environment [0034 for brought into range at a testing station, for example of an original equipment manufacturer].
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Hellinger teaches the radar signal processor is configured to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects [0046 for calibration program automatically adjusts for the misalignment of the radar sensor unit without requiring manual adjustment of the position of the radar sensor unit].
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Hellinger teaches the at least one response radar signal is provided by the radar sensor or the distortion source [0045-0046 for alignment adjustment to stored predefined or predetermined ranges of values].
Regarding Claim 10, Hellinger teaches the radar signal generator and/or the radar signal processor are established on a single hardware chip [0028 for non-transitory computer readable memory of the ECU include volatile memory, non-volatile memory].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 9, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kong fails to disclose the features of claim 1. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments, the addition of the deviation threshold limitation necessitated the new ground of rejection for Hellinger in view of Huang and Lamendola.
In applicant’s arguments page 11, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Huang fails to disclose the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees: New reference Lamendola teaches comparing the deviation to an existing value [Lamendola, col 6, lines 25-35].
In applicant’s arguments page 12, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kong does teach the features of claim 19. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments, the addition of the deviation threshold limitation necessitated the new ground of rejection for Hellinger in view of Huang and Lamendola.
In applicant’s arguments page 14, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Lee does not teach the testing environment with a distortion source. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Lee is not used in the office action, Hellinger, Huang and Lamendola teach the features of the amended claims.
Conclusion
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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights