DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 22, 2025 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, 4, 8-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US 2020/0319325 A1) in view of Huang et al (CN 114124290 B).
Regarding Claim 1, Kong teaches a radar emulator for testing a radar sensor in a testing environment with a potential distortion source, the radar emulator comprising [0031, 0047]
a radar signal generator configured to generate at least one radar signal [0045-0046],
a radar signal receiver configured to receive at least one response radar signal [0045, 0049-0050],
a radar signal processor configured to process the at least one response radar signal received, and [0039, 0050, figure 3]
an input interface via which an approximate location of the radar sensor or a distortion source is input [0034, 0049-0050],
and wherein the radar signal processor is configured to 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 [0049-0050 for measuring signal strength and phase, 0093].
Kong fails to explicitly teach wherein the radar signal processor is configured to determine a deviation between the approximate location input via the input interface of the radar sensor or the approximate location of the distortion source and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal, 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.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches wherein the radar signal processor is configured to determine a deviation between the input approximate location of the radar sensor or the input approximate location of the distortion source and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal [page 12, last paragraph],
and wherein the radar signal processor is configured to map the approximate location of the radar sensor input or the approximate location of the distortion source input to the detected location [page 12, last paragraph].
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 Kong, 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 11, Kong teaches a method of evaluating a testing environment, the method comprising [0047]:
generating at least one radar signal [0045-0046];
receiving at least one response radar signal [0039, 0049-0050];
processing the at least one response radar signal received [0049-0050];
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 [0049-0050 for measuring signal strength and phase, 0093].
Kong fails to explicitly teach determining a deviation between the input approximate location of the radar sensor or the input approximate location of the distortion source and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal and mapping the approximate location of the radar sensor input or the approximate location of the distortion source input to the detected location.
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 input approximate location of the radar sensor or the input approximate location of the distortion source and the detected location of the emitter of the response radar signal [page 12, last paragraph],
and mapping the approximate location of the radar sensor input or the approximate location of the distortion source input to the detected location [page 12, last paragraph].
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 Kong, 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 4, Kong teaches the radar emulator comprises an output interface connected with the radar signal processor [0034-0035].
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Kong teaches the radar signal processor is configured to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects [0023 for mitigating interference, 0036].
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Kong teaches the at least one response radar signal is provided by the radar sensor or the distortion source [0049-0050].
Regarding Claim 10, Kong teaches the radar signal generator and/or the radar signal processor are established on a single hardware chip [0030].
Claims 2, 5-7, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US 2020/0319325 A1) in view of Huang et al (CN 114124290 B) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0055383 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 and 12, Kong fails to explicitly teach the radar signal processor is configured to determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment.
Lee has method of testing vehicular radar includes acquiring binary phase codes of transmitters in a radar DUT (abstract) and teaches the radar signal processor is configured to determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment [0061].
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 Kong, further including the position calculations as taught by Lee for the purpose to emulate delay time for the round-trip delay that would result from the emulated distance between the radar DUT 102 and the location of the emulated target (Lee, 0061).
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Kong fails to explicitly teach the output interface is configured to display a location of the radar sensor based on the detected location.
Lee has method of testing vehicular radar includes acquiring binary phase codes of transmitters in a radar DUT (abstract) and teaches the output interface is configured to display a location of the radar sensor based on the detected location [0026-0027, 0061].
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 Kong, further including the position calculations as taught by Lee for the purpose to use predetermined scenarios, as well as parameters of a particular DUT, such as codes, and fields of view (Lee, 0026).
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, Kong fails to explicitly teach the output interface is configured to display a location of the distortion source in the testing environment.
Lee has method of testing vehicular radar includes acquiring binary phase codes of transmitters in a radar DUT (abstract) and teaches the output interface is configured to display a location of the distortion source in the testing environment [0026-0027, 0061].
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 Kong, further including the position calculations as taught by Lee for the purpose to use predetermined scenarios, as well as parameters of a particular DUT, such as codes, and fields of view (Lee, 0026).
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, Kong fails to explicitly teach the output interface is configured to display a representation of the testing environment.
Lee has method of testing vehicular radar includes acquiring binary phase codes of transmitters in a radar DUT (abstract) and teaches the output interface is configured to display a representation of the testing environment [0026-0027, 0061].
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 Kong, further including the position calculations as taught by Lee for the purpose to use predetermined scenarios, as well as parameters of a particular DUT, such as codes, and fields of view (Lee, 0026).
Regarding Claim 19, Kong teaches radar emulator for testing a radar sensor in a testing environment with a potential distortion source, the radar emulator comprising [0047 for interference and clutter]:
a radar signal generator configured to generate at least one radar signal [0045-0046],
a radar signal receiver configured to receive at least one response radar signal [0039, 0049-0050 for receiving echos],
a radar signal processor configured to process the at least one response radar signal received [0039, 0050, figure 3],
and an input interface via which an approximate location of the radar sensor or a distortion source is input [0034, 0049-0050],
wherein the radar signal processor is configured to: determine at least one characteristic of the at least one response radar signal received [0049-0050 for measuring signal strength and phase, 0093].
Kong fails to explicitly teach map the approximate location of the radar sensor input or the approximate location of the distortion source input to the detected location.
Huang has method and a system for correcting radio signals, which relate to the technical field of radio signal monitoring (abstract) and teaches map the approximate location of the radar sensor input or the approximate location of the distortion source input to the detected location [page 12, last paragraph].
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 Kong, 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).
Kong fails to explicitly teach and determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects caused by the distortion source detected within the testing environment.
Lee has method of testing vehicular radar includes acquiring binary phase codes of transmitters in a radar DUT (abstract) and teaches and determine a location of the distortion source in the testing environment and to determine settings for compensating any disturbing effects caused by the distortion source detected within the testing environment [0061].
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 Kong, further including the position calculations as taught by Lee for the purpose to emulate delay time for the round-trip delay that would result from the emulated distance between the radar DUT 102 and the location of the emulated target (Lee, 0061).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US 2020/0319325 A1) in view of Huang et al (CN 114124290 B) and Lee (US 2021/0055383 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Ma et al (CN 105911529 B).
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Kong 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.
Ma has an echo signal simulator including hardware handles chipset (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 [page 12, last paragraph to page 13 first paragraph].
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 Kong, further including the interference calculations as taught by Ma for the purpose to realize power accuracy and real-time (Ma, page 13, first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 7, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kong fails to use a radar signal processor to map the approximate location of the radar sensor input. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kong has a test controller processes scenario input parameters including sensor and object positions and maps them into the test environment to control echo generation [Kong, 0033-0036].
In applicant’s arguments page 7, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Huang has a different system architecture. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Huang generates radar/radio positioning coordinates to determine if they deviate to the correct signal [Huang, page 6, steps 2-3] which is structurally similar to the claimed processor determining a deviation between an input location and detected emitter.
In applicant’s arguments page 8, fourth paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Huang does not receive or use an input approximate location from an external source. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Huang teaches acquiring base station positioning data with communication signal arrival times from external base stations to establish and map coordinates functionally equivalent to input receiving location data [Huang, page 6, Steps 1-2].
In applicant’s arguments page 8, fifth paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Huang does not map location rather uses it for signal processing to remove interference and the interference signal does not disrupt detected radio emissions. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Huang teaches these features, although not framed as “radar testing” Huang, performs position validation/correction based on coordinate deviation, which is functional identical refinement mechanism to radar validation [Huang, page 6, steps 2-3].
Conclusion
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, William 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648