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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023, 04/15/2024, 11/13/2024, 06/24/2025, 08/22/2025 and 10/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 4, 8-11, 14-15, 17-21 are 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 claims 4 and 15 it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by “DoA and DoD singular vectors”. It is not clear what DoA or DOD singular vectors are or where they come from based on the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted this phrasing to mean “singular vectors”.
Regarding claims 8-9, 17, and 19-20 it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by “least significant left/right singular vectors”. The significance of the singular vectors is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted this phrasing to mean “the left/right singular vectors of the noise subspace”.
Regarding claim 11, is unclear and not readily apparent what the phrase “a minimum value of a quantity of the plurality of Tx antennas and a quantity of the plurality of Rx antennas exceeds a quantity of the targets” is intending to signify. Does this mean the sum of the number of Tx and Rx antennas, the product of the two antenna sets, or each plurality of Tx and Rx antennas individually are greater than the number of targets? Additionally, Examiner notes that “a quantity” can be 1 and therefore the intended limiting effect of the claim is unclear, as claim 1 already requires a plurality of each TX and RX antennas. The quantitative relationship of the inequality is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted this phrasing to mean “the number of targets is less than the sum of the number of Tx antennas and Rx antennas”.
Regarding claim 14, is unclear and not readily apparent what the phrase “the MIMO matrix has a physical meaning” is intended to signify. The “physical meaning” is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is not applying patentable weight to the phrase.
Any claim not specifically addressed is/are rejected based on their dependency of the defective parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a method for Radar signal processing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception
into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a radar system. Thus, the claim is to a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claims 1 and 13, recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
Arranging/producing, by direction processing circuitry, array measurements into a MIMO matrix;
computing, by the direction processing circuitry, a singular-value decomposition (SVD) of the MIMO matrix;
computing, by a direction processing circuitry, direction of destination (DOD) spectrum and direction of arrival (DOA) spectrum; and
detecting, by a detection processing circuitry, targets from computed DOD and DOA spectrum.
The step of “arraigning… array measurements into a MIMO Matrix” may be performed by a series of mathematical operations.
The steps of “computing” may be performed by a series of mathematical operations accomplished through specific mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
The step of “detecting” may performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. DoA and DoD spectra) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The additional elements of claim 1 are “a plurality of transmit (Tx) antennas and a plurality of receive (Rx) antennas; Tx circuits and Rx circuits, wherein the Tx and Rx circuits are electrically coupled to the Tx and Rx antennas”, “measurement processing circuitry electrically coupled to the Tx circuits and Rx circuits,” and “direction processing circuitry”. These elements are basic and well know in the art. By themselves and in conjunction with both the recited judicial exceptions and dependent claims, these claim elements do not impose a meaningful limit.
The additional elements of claim 13 are “by the radar system, MIMO virtual array measurements on target reflections” and “outputting an estimated target angle”. These are data gathering and outputting operations with being integrated into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-21 do not connect to a practical activity, they simply clarify further details of the mathematical operations and mental processes and in the case of claim 12 add the limitation of “a data interface configured to output estimated target angle information” but the limitation is not sufficient to integrate into a practical application since it is merely concerned with outputting data. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the totality of mathematical operations and mental processes are not anchored in a specific application, the acts of information processing do not link to or result in affecting an additional system or result in any stated output. Further, claims 13, 16 and 18 recite the method as being performed by processing circuitry. The processing circuitry is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The hardware elements recited in claims 1 (and its dependents) and 13 (and its dependents) are at a high level, the claims and specification ([0041] The radar system and method embodiments provided herein may overcome some or all of the aforementioned issues for use in the case of radars with super-resolution processing that exploit the orthogonality between noise and signal subspaces. A radar system employing a new M3 or MIMO Matrix Multiple Signal Classification super-resolution angle estimation processor and method is disclosed. As noted in the specification, the invention is essential directed to a super-resolution algorithm. As will be explained below, the claimed super-resolution techniques are already well known in the art.) provide no details that are beyond what is “well-understood, routine, and convention”. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Finally, as noted below receiving and outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner as decided by the court.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoffe et al. (US PG Pub. 20220214425).
Regarding claim 1, Yoffe discloses a radar system comprising:
a plurality of transmit (Tx) antennas and a plurality of receive (Rx) antennas (Fig. 8, 814, 816; [0181] plurality of Tx and Rx antennas);
Tx circuits and Rx circuits, wherein the Tx and Rx circuits are electrically coupled to the Tx and Rx antennas (Fig. 8, transmitter 883, receiver 885; [0187]);
measurement processing circuitry electrically coupled to the Tx circuits and Rx circuits, wherein the measurement processing circuitry is configured to produce multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) virtual array measurements on target reflections from targets (Fig. 8, radar processor 834; [0206] For example, radar frontend 804 and/or radar processor 834 may be configured to utilize MIMO antenna array 881 as a virtual array having an equivalent array size of N*M, which may define locations of virtual elements, for example, as a convolution of locations of physical elements, e.g., the antennas 814 and/or 816.); and
direction processing circuitry, wherein the direction processing circuitry is configured to arrange the virtual array measurements into a MIMO matrix, and wherein the direction processing circuitry is further configured to compute singular-value decomposition (SVD) vectors of the MIMO matrix (Fig. 3, 309, 312, 313 [0577] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 may be configured to apply a singular value decomposition (SVD) to the radar Rx data 811).
Regarding claim 2, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the direction processing circuitry is configured to compute direction of arrival (DOA) spectrum and direction of departure (DOD) spectrum (Fig. 14, Rx (DOA) spectrum 1404 and Tx (DOD) spectrum 1402).
Regarding claim 3, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 2, further comprising detection processing circuitry, wherein the detection processing circuitry is configured to detect targets from the computed DOA spectrum and DOD spectrum (Fig. 14; [0421] curve 1406 depicts an AoA spectrum based on a product of the Tx spectrum and the Rx spectrum; [0424] Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 14, curve 1406 may include only one peak, e.g., corresponding to the single target).
Regarding claim 5, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of Tx antennas forms a sparse MIMO virtual array geometry, and the plurality of Rx antennas forms a sparse MIMO virtual array geometry ([0641] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 (FIG. 8) may be configured to perform one or more operations of SBL method 2110, for example, to determine the AoA spectrum information for a uniform MIMO antenna array, and/or for a sparse non-uniform MIMO antenna array, e.g., as described above).
Regarding claim 6, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of Tx antennas forms a non-uniform array and the plurality of Rx antennas forms a non-uniform array ([0543] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 may be configured to determine an AoA spectrum based on a Sparse Bayesian Learning (SBL) algorithm, which may be configured to support a MIMO radar system utilizing either type of a uniform antenna array or a non-uniform antenna array).
Regarding claim 12, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1, further comprising a data interface configured to output estimated target angle information ([0092] Radar processor 104 may generate radar information, for example, by calculating information about position, radial velocity (Doppler), and/or direction of the object 106, e.g., with respect to vehicle 100. [0093] radar processor 104 may be configured to provide the radar information to a vehicle controller 108 of the vehicle 100.).
Regarding claim 13, Yoffe discloses a method of processing multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) virtual array measurements in a radar system ([0206] For example, radar frontend 804 and/or radar processor 834 may be configured to utilize MIMO antenna array 881 as a virtual array having an equivalent array size of N*M, which may define locations of virtual elements), the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining, by the radar system, MIMO virtual array measurements on target reflections (Fig. 8, radar processor 834; [0206] For example, radar frontend 804 and/or radar processor 834 may be configured to utilize MIMO antenna array 881 as a virtual array having an equivalent array size of N*M, which may define locations of virtual elements, for example, as a convolution of locations of physical elements, e.g., the antennas 814 and/or 816.);
arranging, by direction processing circuitry, array measurements into a MIMO matrix (Fig. 3, 309, 312, 313 [0577] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 may be configured to apply a singular value decomposition (SVD) to the radar Rx data 811);
computing, by the direction processing circuitry, a singular-value decomposition (SVD) of the MIMO matrix (Fig. 3, 309, 312, 313 [0577] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 may be configured to apply a singular value decomposition (SVD) to the radar Rx data 811);
computing, by a direction processing circuitry, direction of destination (DOD) spectrum and direction of arrival (DOA) spectrum (Fig. 14, Rx (DOA) spectrum 1404 and Tx (DOD) spectrum 1402);
detecting, by a detection processing circuitry, targets from computed DOD and DOA spectrum (Fig. 14; [0421] curve 1406 depicts an AoA spectrum based on a product of the Tx spectrum and the Rx spectrum; [0424] Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 14, curve 1406 may include only one peak, e.g., corresponding to the single target); and
outputting an estimated target angle ([0230] radar processor 834 may be configured to select the AoA spectrum estimation algorithm, for example, based on one or more requirements with respect to the AoA spectrum, for example, …, or a hard output, e.g., including a plurality of target detections).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, wherein the MIMO matrix is modeled as a sum of ([608] In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 834 may be configured to apply the SBL algorithm to the radar Rx data 811. (Equation 18) Y = ArxXAtx + N,):
a matrix product of a Tx steering vector matrix, a target amplitude matrix, and a Rx steering vector matrix ([0606] wherein Arx denotes the Rx steering matrix, Atx denotes the Tx steering matrix); and
a noise matrix ([0595]-[0597] N is the noise matrix and X is the amplitude matrix).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Yoffe discloses the method of claim 13 wherein detecting, by a detection processing circuitry, targets from computed DOD and DOA spectrum, includes using apodization ([0080] the MIMO radar device may be configured to utilize “spatial filtering” processing, [0251] In some demonstrative aspects, the selected AoA may include a selected combination of two or more of the plurality of AoA estimation algorithms), wherein a plurality of algorithms is used for detecting the targets ([0249] For example, the SR algorithm may include, or may be based on, a Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR) algorithm, a Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithm, an Iterative Adaptive Approach (IAA) algorithm, a Monopulse algorithm, and/or any other additional or alternative SR algorithm.).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoffe as applied to claims 2, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Gönen (E. Gönen and J. M. Mendel “Subspace-Based Direction-Finding Methods” in Madisetti, V., Wireless, Networking, Radar, Sensor Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing (1st ed.) (CRC Press., 2010)) and Zhang (X. Zhang, L. Xu, L. Xu and D. Xu, "Direction of Departure (DOD) and Direction of Arrival (DOA) Estimation in MIMO Radar with Reduced-Dimension MUSIC," in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1161-1163, December 2010).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, and 16, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 2 and method of claim 13. Yoffe fails to explicitly disclose computing the combined DoA and DoD angle spectrum by searching steering vectors or calibrated array angular response vectors that are orthogonal to a noise subspace of DoA and DoD singular vectors.
Zhang teaches that it is known in the art to compute the combined DoA and DoD angle spectrum (Page 1, col. 1, lines 35-37, It has been proved that two-dimension MUSIC (2D-MUSIC) algorithm can be used for DOD and DOA estimation in MIMO radar.) by searching steering vectors or calibrated array angular response vectors (Page 1, col. 2, lines 14-17, where 𝜃𝑘, 𝜙𝑘 are the DOD and DOA of the kth target with respect to the transmit array normal and the receive array normal, respectively; a𝑟(𝜙𝑘) and a𝑡(𝜃𝑘), are the receive steering vector for 𝜙𝑘 and the transmit steering vector for 𝜃𝑘, respectively. 𝑓2𝑑𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑐(𝜙, 𝜃), equation 3 in Zhang, is the 2D MUSIC spectrum function which is a function of the Tx and Rx steering vectors and noise subspace. ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that the 2D MUSIC algorithm is well known in the art as a widely used technique that is a proven and thus reliable method to calculate a combined DoA/DoD spectrum as taught by Zhang (Page 1, col. 1, lines 19-24; Multiple signal classification (MUSIC), one of the most widely used subspace based methods, has moderate estimation performance, and it matches some kind of irregularly-spaced array [8]. It has been proved that two-dimension MUSIC (2D-MUSIC) algorithm can be used for DOD and DOA estimation in MIMO radar.)
Gönen teaches that it is known in the art that steering vectors are orthogonal to the singular vectors of the noise subspace (Page 6, 3.3.2 Noise Subspace Methods, lines 1-2, These methods, in which only the noise subspace information is retained, are based on the property that the steering vectors are orthogonal to any linear combination of the noise subspace eigenvectors [singular vectors].). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to integrate using the orthogonality of steering vectors to the eigenvectors (singular vectors) of the noise subspace as taught by Gönen, since such a modification enable the use noise subspace based super-resolution techniques which have a lower computational cost than other techniques for DoD/DoA estimation as noted by Gönen (Page 1, lines 15-18; “Subspace-based” (or, super-resolution) approaches have attracted much attention, after the work of Schmidt [29] (original MUSIC article), due to their computational simplicity as compared to the ML approach, and their possibility of overcoming the Rayleigh bound on the resolution power of classical direction-finding methods.).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 7. Yoffe does not explicitly disclose that least significant left singular vectors are orthogonal to the Tx/Rx steering vectors, and wherein least significant right singular vectors are orthogonal to the Rx/Tx steering vector.
Gönen teaches that it is known in the art that steering vectors are orthogonal to noise subspace singular vectors (Page 6, 3.3.2 Noise Subspace Methods, lines 1-2, These methods, in which only the noise subspace information is retained, are based on the property that the steering vectors are orthogonal to any linear combination of the noise subspace eigenvectors (singular vectors).). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoffe in view of Gönen with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – MIMO RADAR signal processing. The combination would enable the use of super-resolution techniques which can overcome the limitations of classical direction-finding techniques as noted by Gönen (Page 2, lines 18-20, In applications, the Rayleigh criterion sets a bound on the resolution power of classical direction-finding methods. In the next sections we summarize some of the so-called super-resolution direction-finding methods which may overcome the Rayleigh bound.)
Zhang discloses the least significant left/right singular vectors are the eigenvectors of the noise subspace (Page 1, col. 2, Eq. 2 and lines 25-32, where D𝑠 is a K×K diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements contain the largest K eigenvalues and D𝑛 stands for a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries contain the smallest MN-K eigenvalues. E𝑠 is the matrix composed of the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest K eigenvalues of R𝑥, while E𝑛 represents the matrix including the rest eigenvectors. Note that E𝑠 and E𝑛 can be regarded as the signal subspace and the noise subspace, respectively.). Thus, by combining Zhang and Gönen, the least significant singular vectors are orthogonal to the steering vectors. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoffe in view of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – MIMO RADAR signal processing. The combination would enable the use of super-resolution techniques which can overcome the limitations of classical direction-finding techniques as noted by Gönen (Page 2, lines 18-20, In applications, the Rayleigh criterion sets a bound on the resolution power of classical direction-finding methods. In the next sections we summarize some of the so-called super-resolution direction-finding methods which may overcome the Rayleigh bound.)
Regarding claim 17, Yoffe discloses the method of claim 13. Yoffe does not explicitly disclose wherein computing the DoD spectrum and DoA spectrum includes evaluating the expression
PNG
media_image1.png
64
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein bT𝜃,φ is an Rx steering vector evaluated at elevation angle 𝜃 and azimuth angle φ, U is a matrix of least left singular vectors of the MIMO matrix, ΣW is a sub matrix having a signal component zeroed and noise components retained, VH is a conjugate transposed matrix of least right singular vectors of the MIMO matrix, and a𝜃,φ, is a Tx steering vector evaluated at elevation angle 𝜃 and azimuth angle φ.
Zhang teaches that it is known in the art that the above expression is the 2D MUSIC algorithm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the above expression as taught by Zhang for computing the DoD spectrum and DoA spectrum, since such a modification would improve the reliability of the direction finding techniques since the 2D MUSIC algorithm is well known in the art as a proven and thus reliable method to calculate a combined DoA/DoD spectrum as taught by Zhang (Page 1, col. 1, lines 19-24; Multiple signal classification (MUSIC), one of the most widely used subspace based methods, has moderate estimation performance, and it matches some kind of irregularly-spaced array [8]. It has been proved that two-dimension MUSIC (2D-MUSIC) algorithm can be used for DOD and DOA estimation in MIMO radar.)
Claim(s) 10, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoffe as applied to claims 1 and 13, in view of Howard et al. (US PG Pub. 20070249296).
Regarding claims 10, 19 and 21, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1 and method of claim 13. Yoffe does not explicitly disclose wherein left singular vectors from a first side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Rx or direction of arrival singular vectors, and wherein right singular vectors from a second side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Tx or direction of departure singular vectors.
However, Howard teaches SVD techniques with MIMO arrays ([0005] A multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication system employs multiple (T) transmit antennas at a transmitting entity and multiple (R) receive antennas at a receiving entity for data transmission.) with wherein left singular vectors from a first side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Rx or direction of arrival singular vectors, and wherein right singular vectors from a second side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Tx or direction of departure singular vectors ([0007] The singular value decomposition provides left and right singular vectors, and the eigenvalue decomposition provides eigenvectors. The transmitting entity uses the right singular vectors or the eigenvectors to transmit data on the S eigenmodes. The receiving entity uses the left singular vectors or the eigenvectors to receive data on the S eigenmodes.).
Yoffe and Howard are both considered to be analogous to
the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of SVD analysis of MIMO array transmission and receiving technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the left singular vectors from a first side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Rx or direction of arrival singular vectors, and wherein right singular vectors from a second side of the SVD of the MIMO matrix indicate Tx or direction of departure singular vectors of Howard with the radar system and method of Yoffe to yield a predictable result of improving the performance of the Tx and Rx antenna arrays as noted by Howard ([0041] A transmitting entity may use the right singular vectors in V to transmit data on the eigenmodes of H, which typically provides better performance than simply transmitting data from the T transmit antennas without any spatial processing. A receiving entity may use the left singular vectors in U or the eigenvectors in V to receive the data transmission on the eigenmodes of H.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoffe in further view of Gönen.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Yoffe discloses the radar system of claim 1. Yoffe does not explicitly disclose a minimum value of a quantity of the plurality of Tx antennas and a quantity of the plurality of Rx antennas exceeds a quantity of the targets.
Gönen teaches a minimum value of a quantity of the plurality of Tx antennas and a quantity of the plurality of Rx antennas exceeds a quantity of the targets (Page 2, lines 1-2; Consider an array of M antenna elements receiving a set of plane waves emitted by P (P < M) sources…). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to limit the number of detectable targets based on the number of antennas as taught by Gönen, since such a modification would allow for resolving the desired number of targets accurately and this is a requirement for applying super-resolution techniques.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoffe in view of Howard as applied to claim 19, in further view of Gönen and Zhang.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Yoffe as modified by Howard teach the method of claim 19. Yoffe does not explicitly disclose that least significant left singular vectors are orthogonal to the Rx steering vectors, and wherein least significant right singular vectors are orthogonal to the Tx steering vector.
Gönen teaches that it is known in the art steering vectors are orthogonal to noise subspace singular vectors (Page 6, 3.3.2 Noise Subspace Methods, lines 1-2, These methods, in which only the noise subspace information is retained, are based on the property that the steering vectors are orthogonal to any linear combination of the noise subspace eigenvectors (singular vectors).). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoffe in view of Gönen with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – MIMO RADAR signal processing. The combination would enable the use of super-resolution techniques which can overcome the limitations of classical direction-finding techniques as noted by Gönen (Page 2, lines 18-20, In applications, the Rayleigh criterion sets a bound on the resolution power of classical direction-finding methods. In the next sections we summarize some of the so-called super-resolution direction-finding methods which may overcome the Rayleigh bound.)
Zhang discloses the least significant left/right singular vectors are the eigenvectors of the noise subspace (Page 1, col. 2, Eq. 2 and lines 25-32, where D𝑠 is a K×K diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements contain the largest K eigenvalues and D𝑛 stands for a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries contain the smallest MN-K eigenvalues. E𝑠 is the matrix composed of the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest K eigenvalues of R𝑥, while E𝑛 represents the matrix including the rest eigenvectors. Note that E𝑠 and E𝑛 can be regarded as the signal subspace and the noise subspace, respectively.). Thus, by combining Zhang and Gönen, the least significant singular vectors are orthogonal to the steering vectors. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoffe in view of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – MIMO RADAR signal processing. The combination would enable the use of super-resolution techniques which can overcome the limitations of classical direction-finding techniques as noted by Gönen (Page 2, lines 18-20, In applications, the Rayleigh criterion sets a bound on the resolution power of classical direction-finding methods. In the next sections we summarize some of the so-called super-resolution direction-finding methods which may overcome the Rayleigh bound.)
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220260708 discloses systems and methods of a radar system with an angle-finding process for sparse uniform arrays. The radar system includes a processor and an antenna which includes a one-dimensional (1D) or two-dimensional (2D) sparse array. The processor can determine a signal subspace associated with the objects that includes an invariance equation. Using an estimated solution to the invariance equation, the processor determines a solution to the invariance equation. The solution to the invariance equation is used to determine angular phases associated with the objects. The processor can then determine, using the angular phases, angles associated with the objects.
US 20220187424 discloses systems and methods for processing radar signals from a sparse MIMO array. The signals from a MIMO radar array are processed to generate a sparse virtual array. Then, by using a two-dimensional (2D) variant of missing-data iterative adaptive approach (missing-data IAA or MIAA) to process the virtual array, the system can estimate information from the missing antennas of the sparse virtual array. Then, by using the now full virtually array, the system can process the virtual array using a variant of multi-dimensional folding (MDF) to discover the existence and location (e.g., distance, elevation, and azimuth) of objects (also called scatterers) within the MIMO radar array's field of view.
US 20200400808 discloses systems and methods for sensing a target in a target detection system comprising processing circuitry, a multiplexer coupled to the processing circuitry and to a plurality of transmit antennas forming a sparse transmit uniform linear array, ULA, the multiplexer being configured to generate multiplexed and phase modulated transmit signals based on signals from a local oscillator, the processing circuitry being further coupled for receiving signals via a plurality of receive antennas forming a dense receive ULA. The method comprises transmitting the plurality of transmit signals via the transmit antennas to form a general radiation pattern corresponding to a block circulant probing signal matrix and receiving via the receive antennas receive signals resulting from backscattering of the plurality of transmit signals transmitted towards K targets. The method further comprises processing the received reflection signals to determine the presence, range and/or angular position of a target within a field of view of the transmit antennas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646