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 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objections from the previously filed Office Action.
A new Non-Final rejection has been provided to address 35 U.S.C. 101 issues in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks filed with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are found to be unpersuasive. The Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks filed, “Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] of Zhang only describes the existence of monostatic and bistatic scenarios, stating that the monostatic scenario involves the direct path and the bistatic scenario involves both the direct path and multipath. Zhang does not detail the processing required to distinguish between direct and multipath. Therefore, Zhang does not disclose or suggest "whether a propagation mode of a reception signal vector of interest for the bidirectional measured angle value calculated by the bidirectional angle measurer is a direct propagation mode or a multipath propagation mode by comparing the bidirectional measured angle value which is a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival with a threshold," (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1. The other cited art similarly does not disclose or suggest these features of claim 1.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang indeed discloses the feature of comparing the bidirectional measured angle value with a threshold. This feature is disclosed in see Fig. 4 steps 422, 424, 418 ,426, 420 and 428, where it is determined whether the DOD angle and DOA angles are the same (i.e. “a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival”). If they are not the same, a “matching error” is determined which is then compared to a threshold. NOTE: this “matching error” is also indeed “a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival” under its broadest reasonable interpretation and this value is a “bidirectional measure angle value”. Paragraphs 0071-0072 clearly recite this feature when they recites, “At 416, the angle-finding module 114 compares the matching errors for the bistatic-condition hypothesis to a predetermined threshold. If the matching error is smaller than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 418 sets the bistatic flag or indicator, f.sub.bistatic, to false. And the angle estimates 420 are output from the monostatic-scenario hypothesis…If the matching error is larger than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 422 performs cross-matching to estimate the joint DoD and DoA and unfold the angles. In cross-matching, the angle-finding module 114 uses μ.sub.1 and v.sub.2 as one pair for unfolding, while μ.sub.2 and v.sub.1 are used as one pair for unfolding using Equations (5) and (6).”. Afterwards, as shown in Fig. 4 a bi-static flag is set at 418/426 to distinguish whether the propagation mode is indeed a bistatic mode or a monostatic mode. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant arguments in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections provided and asserts that Zhang et al. (US 20220244370 A1) in view of KATO et al. (US 10101440 B2) indeed discloses the claimed invention.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A MIMO radar signal processing device comprising:
a plurality of transmission signal generators to generate transmission signals different from each other and output the generated transmission signals to corresponding transmission antennas;
a plurality of matched filter banks, each receiving a reception signal from a reception antenna corresponding to each of a plurality of reception antennas that capture reflected waves obtained by transmission waves transmitted from the transmission antennas, reaching an object and being reflected as arrival waves and transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal generators, and outputting matched filter outputs serving as vector elements of reception signal vectors using the transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal generators as a replica of a matched filter;
a bidirectional angle measurer to obtain a bidirectional measured angle value constituted by a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival in a reception signal vector of interest corresponding to a range Doppler cell given in target detection processing among reception signal vectors for matched filter outputs from the plurality of matched filter banks; and
a propagation mode distinguisher to distinguish, by the bidirectional measured angle value, whether a propagation mode of a reception signal vector of interest for the bidirectional measured angle value calculated by the bidirectional angle measurer is a direct propagation mode or a multipath propagation mode by comparing the bidirectional measured angle value which is a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival with a threshold.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system and therefore, is an apparatus and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of:
“a propagation mode distinguisher to distinguish, by the bidirectional measured angle value, whether a propagation mode of a reception signal vector of interest for the bidirectional measured angle value calculated by the bidirectional angle measurer is a direct propagation mode or a multipath propagation mode by comparing the bidirectional measured angle value which is a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival with a threshold.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and is simply mathematical manipulation and comparison of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation of, “a plurality of transmission signal generators to generate transmission signals different from each other and output the generated transmission signals to corresponding transmission antennas;” is simply defining the MIMO radar system used to obtain the data. Such a radar system step is routine and conventional where radar signals are transmitted and the reflected waves are received and then further processed.
The recitation of the limitations of, “a plurality of matched filter banks, each receiving a reception signal from a reception antenna corresponding to each of a plurality of reception antennas that capture reflected waves obtained by transmission waves transmitted from the transmission antennas, reaching an object and being reflected as arrival waves and transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal generators, and outputting matched filter outputs serving as vector elements of reception signal vectors using the transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal generators as a replica of a matched filter;” is simply defining the data which is received via the radar system. NOTE: all radar signals are indeed received and processed using a matched filter as a matched filter is a routine and conventional aspect of a radar system to generate the reception signal vectors. The matched filter provides a replica of the transmitted signal and thus allows the difference between the transmitted and received signals to be generated to determine object characteristic. Such a radar system step is indeed routine and conventional where radar signals are transmitted and the reflected waves are received and the replica of the transmitted signal is used to determine the received signal vector (i.e. a matched filter is used).
and “ a bidirectional angle measurer to obtain a bidirectional measured angle value constituted by a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival in a reception signal vector of interest corresponding to a range Doppler cell given in target detection processing among reception signal vectors for matched filter outputs from the plurality of matched filter banks; ” amounts to mere data gathering and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. For example, the use of the “a plurality of transmission signal generators” and “a plurality of matched filter banks”, are elements which are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field of radar MIMO systems to gather and process data. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above where claim 8 is also a system claim and claim 10 is a method claim. Claims 8 and 10 are further broadened versions of claim 1 where claims 8 lacks the recitation of the transmission signal generators and claim 10 lacks the recitation of both the plurality of the transmission signal generators and the plurality of matched filter banks as recited in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5,7,9 and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-5 and 7-11 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220244370 A1), hereinafter Zhang, in view of KATO et al. (US 10101440 B2), hereinafter KATO.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses [Note: what Zhang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A MIMO radar signal processing device (see Fig. 1, further see paragraph 0028, “The radar system 102 can be a MIMO radar system and rely on ULAs to match the reflected EM signals to corresponding objects.”) comprising:
a plurality of transmission signal paths to generate transmission signals different from each other and output the generated transmission signals to corresponding transmission antennas (see Fig. 1, further see paragraph 0028, “The radar system 102 can include a transmitter 106 to transmit EM signals. The radar system 102 can also include a receiver 108 to receive reflected versions of the EM signals. The transmitter 106 includes one or more components, including an antenna or antenna elements, for emitting the EM signals. The receiver 108 includes one or more components, including an antenna or antenna elements, for detecting the reflected EM signals. The transmitter 106 and the receiver 108 can be incorporated together on the same integrated circuit (e.g., a transceiver integrated circuit) or separately on different integrated circuits. In other implementations, the radar system 102 does not include a separate antenna, but the transmitter 106 and the receiver 108 each include one or more antenna elements.”, further see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0080, “At 602, a radar system transmits EM energy using a transmitter array having a first number of antenna elements. For example, the transmitter array 312 of the antenna 300-2 includes three antenna elements 306. The antenna elements 306 are spaced apart by the transmitter spacing, d.sub.T, 316.”);
a plurality of receiver paths, each receiving a reception signal from a reception antenna corresponding to each of a plurality of reception antennas that capture reflected waves obtained by transmission waves transmitted from the transmission antennas (see Fig. 1, further see paragraph 0028, “The radar system 102 can include a transmitter 106 to transmit EM signals. The radar system 102 can also include a receiver 108 to receive reflected versions of the EM signals. The transmitter 106 includes one or more components, including an antenna or antenna elements, for emitting the EM signals. The receiver 108 includes one or more components, including an antenna or antenna elements, for detecting the reflected EM signals. The transmitter 106 and the receiver 108 can be incorporated together on the same integrated circuit (e.g., a transceiver integrated circuit) or separately on different integrated circuits. In other implementations, the radar system 102 does not include a separate antenna, but the transmitter 106 and the receiver 108 each include one or more antenna elements.”, further see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0081, “At 604, the radar system receives EM energy reflected by one or more objects using a receiver array having a second number of antenna elements. For example, the receiver array 314 of the antenna 300-2 includes four antenna elements 306. The antenna elements 306 are spaced apart by the receiver spacing, d.sub.R, 318. The EM energy transmitted by the transmitter array 312 can be reflected by one or more objects 120”), reaching an object and being reflected as arrival waves and transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal paths (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0081, “At 604, the radar system receives EM energy reflected by one or more objects using a receiver array having a second number of antenna elements. For example, the receiver array 314 of the antenna 300-2 includes four antenna elements 306. The antenna elements 306 are spaced apart by the receiver spacing, d.sub.R, 318. The EM energy transmitted by the transmitter array 312 can be reflected by one or more objects 120”), and outputting (see paragraphs 0082-0083, “[0082] At 606, the radar system generates a 2D data matrix using the EM energy received at the receiver array. The 2D data matrix includes the first number of rows and the second number of columns. For example, the angle-finding module 114 can use the EM energy received at the receiver array 314 to generate the 2D data matrix 500. The 2D data matrix 500 can include three rows and four columns corresponding to the number of antenna elements in the transmitter array 312 and the receiver array 314, respectively…At 608, the radar system determines DoA estimates and DoD estimates for monostatic conditions and bistatic conditions using the 2D data matrix. For example, the angle-finding module 114 can use the 2D data matrix to perform a direct-matching method or a cross-matching method to determine DoA estimates and DoD estimates for monostatic conditions and/or bistatic conditions as explained in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 4 and 5…At 610, the radar system determines an angle associated with each of the one or more objects by comparing the DoA estimates to the DoD estimates. For example, the angle-finding module 114 can compare the DoA estimates to the DoD estimates to determine an azimuth or elevation angle for the one or more objects that reflected the EM energy.”; where radar uses “a replica signal” to correlate with the received signal to determine object characteristics such as angle estimations);
a bidirectional angle measurer to obtain a bidirectional measured angle value constituted by a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival in a reception signal vector of interest (see paragraph 0043, “After range-Doppler processing, the angle-finding module 114 can solve the following two scenarios by considering up to three angular targets in the same range-Doppler bin. First, a monostatic scenario where the DoD (e.g., the DoD 202-1 and the DoD 202-4) and the DoA (e.g., the DoA 204-1 and the DoA 204-4) are equal. In this scenario, the angle-finding module 114 can estimate the DoA without aliasing by forming a large synthetic array. Second, a bistatic scenario where the DoD (e.g., the DoD 202-2 and the DoD 202-3) and the DoA (e.g., the DoA 204-2 and the DoA 204-3) are not equal. In this scenario, the angle-finding module 114 can estimate the DoD and the DoA without aliasing. There are two angular targets in the same range-Doppler bin in the bistatic scenario that share the same propagation path with opposite directions. For the detection condition 200-2, the DoD 202-2 is a first angle 206, θ.sub.1, and the DoA 204-2 is a second angle 208, φ.sub.1. For the detection condition 200-3, the DoD 202-3 is a third angle 212, θ.sub.2, and the DoA 204-3 is a fourth angle 210, φ.sub.2. Because the propagation paths are the same, the first angle 206, θ.sub.1, is equal to the fourth angle 210, φ.sub.2, and the second angle 208, φ.sub.1, is equal to third angle 212, θ.sub.2.”, further see flow diagraph of Fig. 4 which determines the matching error, further see paragraph 0067, “For the monostatic-scenario hypothesis, the DoD, θ, is equal to the DoA, φ. For the two 2D angular phase estimates (μ.sub.1, v.sub.1) and (μ.sub.2, v.sub.2), the angle-finding module 114 can use the DoA estimation process described with respect to operation 408 for the monostatic scenario and record the respective matching errors.”) corresponding to a range Doppler cell given in target detection processing among reception signal vectors for receiver paths (further see paragraphs 0042-0043, “The angle-finding module 114 can find three clusters of energy in range-Doppler detections (RDDs), including direct-path detections, bistatic scenarios, and two-way multipath detections. The angle-finding module 114 can use range-Doppler information to differentiate the bistatic scenarios (e.g., detection conditions 200-2 and 200-3) from the monostatic scenarios (e.g., detection conditions 200-1 and 200-4). The bistatic scenarios fall into the same range-Doppler bin.”); and a
propagation mode distinguisher to distinguish, by the bidirectional measured angle value, whether a propagation mode of a reception signal vector of interest for the bidirectional measured angle value calculated by the bidirectional angle measurer is a direct propagation mode or a multipath propagation mode by comparing the bidirectional measured angle value which is a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival with a threshold. (see Fig. 4 steps 422, 424, 418 ,426, 420 and 428, further see paragraphs 0037-0038, “The angle-finding module 114 may determine that the DoA 204-2 and the DoD 202-2 are not equal [NOTE: this is tantamount to “a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival”], and therefore, a bistatic scenario exists in front of vehicle 104. The range or length of the transmitted radiation is not equal to the range or length of the reflected radiation.”, further see step 424 in Fig. 4 which determines cross-matching error and direct-matching error between the DOA and DOD estimates (i.e. which is also indeed “a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival” and this cross matching error is compared to a threshold, further see paragraph 0071, “At 416, the angle-finding module 114 compares the matching errors for the bistatic-condition hypothesis to a predetermined threshold. If the matching error is smaller than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 418 sets the bistatic flag or indicator, f.sub.bistatic, to false. And the angle estimates 420 are output from the monostatic-scenario hypothesis.”, further note that in Fig. 4 a bi-static flag is set at 418/426 to distinguish whether the propagation mode is indeed a bistatic mode or a monostatic mode).
KATO discloses,
a plurality of transmission signal generators to generate transmission signals different from each other and output the generated transmission signals to corresponding transmission antennas (see Fig. 1, plurality of “transmission signa Generation process units”, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, further see Col. 3, lines 1-11, “In an example in FIG. 1, the transmission signal generation unit 1 includes three transmission signal generation process units 1-1 to 1-3, and generates three mutually orthogonal transmission signals, but this is only exemplary, and the transmission signal generation unit 1 only needs to generate two or more mutually orthogonal transmission signals…The transmission signal generation process units 1-1 to 1-3 generate mutually orthogonal transmission signals (1) to (3) by using any one or plural mutually different times, mutually different frequencies, and mutually different codes.”),
a plurality of matched filter banks, each receiving a reception signal from a reception antenna corresponding to each of a plurality of reception antennas that capture reflected waves obtained by transmission waves transmitted from the transmission antennas (see Fig. 1, cross-correlation operation units 5-1-1, 5-1-2 and 5-1-3 implemented as “matched filters”, further see Col. 8, line 66 - Col. 9, line 6) and outputting matched filter outputs serving as vector elements of reception signal vectors using the transmission signals from the plurality of transmission signal generators as a replica of a matched filter (see Fig. plurality of “cross correlation operation units”, 5-1-1,5-1-2,5-1-3, further see Col. 3, line 57-Col. 4 line 9, “A replica generation unit 4 generates replicas of the transmission signals (1) to (3) generated by the transmission signal generation process units 1-1 to 1-3, and outputs the replicas or the transmission signals (1) to (3) to correlation process units 5-1 to 5-N…FIG. 1 shows an example in which the replica generation unit 4 outputs the replicas of the transmission signals (1) to (3) to the correlation process units 5-1 to 5-N, but the transmission signal generation process units 1-1 to 1-3 may output the transmission signals (1) to (3) to the correlation process units 5-1 to 5-N. In this case, it is possible to omit the replica generation unit 4. However, by mounting the replica generation unit 4, it is possible to give the same signals as the transmission signals (1) to (3) emitted from the transmitting antennas 2-1 to 2-3 to the correlation process units 5-1 to 5-N even in the case where the installation positions of the transmission signal generation unit 1 and the correlation process units 5-1 to 5-N are far away from each other.”, further see Col. 8, line 66 - Col. 9, line 6, “Herein, the replica of the transmission signal (1) is a signal stream having a predetermined length, and the cross-correlation process between the replica of the transmission signal (1) and the reception signal can be implemented by using, e.g., a matched filter that determines the correlation between the replica of the transmission signal (1) and the reception signal by multiplying the replica of the transmission signal (1) and the reception signal.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by KATO into the invention of Zhang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a MIMO radar device to determine correlation between transmitted and received radar signals for object detection. Zhang discloses a MIMO radar system where Direction of Arrival (DAO) and Direction of Departure (DOD) are used to determine whether bi-static or mono-static paths between the radar and objects exists. Although, Zhang does not clearly disclose the use of “a plurality of transmission signal generators to generate transmission signals”, it would have been obvious in light of KATO to incorporate such a feature. Furthermore, the use of a plurality of generators is simply a design choice where a single generator can also be used to generate a plurality of different transmission signals coupled to a plurality of transmission signals. In either configurations, the result would be the same that a plurality of transmission signals are generated and transmitted along a plurality of transmission paths using a plurality of transmission antennas. Secondly, Zhang discloses the feature of correlating the transmission signals with the reception signals to determine angle values. It is important to note that when using radar, “a transmission signal replica” is used to determine the change in the transmission signal and reflected received signals (this is further supported by KATO) to determine angle/azimuth values. Furthermore, although Zhang does not clearly disclose the use of a plurality of “matched filters”, such a design feature would have been obvious in light of KATO where a plurality of correlation units are coupled with the receiver antennas and these correlation units are implemented as “matched filters”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform the “detection conditions” 200-1, 200-2, 200-3, and 200-4 encountered by vehicle 104 with the radar system 102 using a plurality of matched filters coupled to the receiver antennas. The combination Zhang and KATO would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain the desired directivity pattern with high accuracy (see Col. 17, lines 24-26 of KATO) .
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses
The MIMO radar signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the bidirectional measured angle value by the bidirectional angle measurer is obtained by obtaining a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival at which a directional spectrum obtained using a transmission array steering vector related to the transmission signal and a reception array steering vector related to the reception signal as variables indicates a maximum value (see paragraph 0041, “The described radar system 102 and angle-finding module 114 can perform object detection for one or more objects 120 in the detection conditions 200-1 through 200-4. Doppler velocity estimates for a multipath reflection can depend on the speed of the vehicle 104 (e.g., the host vehicle), the speed of the object 120, and the speed of the reflective surface 118. For example, when the reflective surface 118 is stationary (e.g., a wall, a fence, a guardrail), the direct-path detection condition 200-1 has the largest absolute Doppler velocity,”, where in a bi-static condition, the values of the DOA and DOD are at “a maximum value”) as a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival constituting the bidirectional measured angle value in the reception signal vector of interest (see further paragraphs 0042-0043, “The angle-finding module 114 can find three clusters of energy in range-Doppler detections (RDDs), including direct-path detections, bistatic scenarios, and two-way multipath detections. The angle-finding module 114 can use range-Doppler information to differentiate the bistatic scenarios (e.g., detection conditions 200-2 and 200-3) from the monostatic scenarios (e.g., detection conditions 200-1 and 200-4). The bistatic scenarios fall into the same range-Doppler bin…After range-Doppler processing, the angle-finding module 114 can solve the following two scenarios by considering up to three angular targets in the same range-Doppler bin. First, a monostatic scenario where the DoD (e.g., the DoD 202-1 and the DoD 202-4) and the DoA (e.g., the DoA 204-1 and the DoA 204-4) are equal. In this scenario, the angle-finding module 114 can estimate the DoA without aliasing by forming a large synthetic array. Second, a bistatic scenario where the DoD (e.g., the DoD 202-2 and the DoD 202-3) and the DoA (e.g., the DoA 204-2 and the DoA 204-3) are not equal. In this scenario, the angle-finding module 114 can estimate the DoD and the DoA without aliasing. There are two angular targets in the same range-Doppler bin in the bistatic scenario that share the same propagation path with opposite directions. For the detection condition 200-2, the DoD 202-2 is a first angle 206, θ.sub.1, and the DoA 204-2 is a second angle 208, φ.sub.1. For the detection condition 200-3, the DoD 202-3 is a third angle 212, θ.sub.2, and the DoA 204-3 is a fourth angle 210, φ.sub.2. Because the propagation paths are the same, the first angle 206, θ.sub.1, is equal to the fourth angle 210, φ.sub.2, and the second angle 208, φ.sub.1, is equal to third angle 212, θ.sub.2.”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses
The MIMO radar signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the bidirectional measured angle value by the bidirectional angle measurer is obtained by obtaining a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival at which a directional spectrum obtained using a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival (see paragraph 0067-0071, “For the monostatic-scenario hypothesis, the DoD, θ, is equal to the DoA, φ. For the two 2D angular phase estimates (μ.sub.1, v.sub.1) and (μ.sub.2, v.sub.2), the angle-finding module 114 can use the DoA estimation process described with respect to operation 408 for the monostatic scenario and record the respective matching errors.”, further see paragraph 0074, “In another implementation, the angle-finding module 114 compares the matching errors between the monostatic-scenario hypothesis and the bistatic-scenario hypothesis. The smaller matching error indicates the true hypothesis and corresponding angle estimates.”, further see paragraph 0095, “The radar system of example 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, responsive to the number of the one or more objects being two: determine whether the matching error associated with the potential pair of matching angles is less than the matching error associated with the potential angle; responsive to the matching error associated with the potential pair of matching angles being less than the matching error associated with the potential angle, determine that the angle associated with each of the one or more objects is equal to the potential pair of matching angles; and responsive to the matching error associated with the potential pair of matching angles not being less than the matching error associated with the potential angle, determine that the angle associated with each of the one or more objects is equal to the potential angle.”)) constituting the bidirectional measured angle value in the reception signal vector of interest as variables indicates a maximum value, as a direction-of-departure and a direction-of- arrival constituting a bidirectional measured angle value in the reception signal vector of interest (see paragraph 0031, “The radar system 102 can determine a distance to the object 120 based on the time it takes for the EM signals to travel from the radar system 102 to the object 120, and from the object 120 back to the radar system 102. The radar system 102 can also determine, using the angle-finding module 114, a location of the object 120 in terms of a direction of departure (DoD) 128 and a direction of arrival (DoA) 134 based on the direction of one or more large-amplitude echo signal received by the radar system 102.”, where the angle value is determined based on the “largest amplitude” echo signal).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further discloses
The MIMO radar signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the propagation mode distinguisher compares a value of a difference between a direction-of-departure and a direction-of-arrival constituting the bidirectional measured angle value obtained by the bidirectional angle measurer with a threshold, distinguishes the propagation mode as a direct propagation mode when the value of the difference is equal to or less than the threshold, and distinguishes the propagation mode as a multipath propagation mode when the value of the difference exceeds the threshold (see Fig. 4 steps 422, 424, 418 ,426, 420 and 428, further see paragraphs 0037-0038, “The angle-finding module 114 may determine that the DoA 204-2 and the DoD 202-2 are not equal [NOTE: this is tantamount to “a difference between direction of departure and direction of arrival”], further see paragraphs 0071-74, “If the matching error is larger than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 422 performs cross-matching to estimate the joint DoD and DoA and unfold the angles. In cross-matching, the angle-finding module 114 uses μ.sub.1 and v.sub.2 as one pair for unfolding, while μ.sub.2 and v.sub.1 are used as one pair for unfolding using Equations (5) and (6)… ] At 416, the angle-finding module 114 compares the matching errors for the bistatic-condition hypothesis to a predetermined threshold. If the matching error is smaller than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 418 sets the bistatic flag or indicator, f.sub.bistatic, to false. And the angle estimates 420 are output from the monostatic-scenario hypothesis…If the matching error is larger than the predetermined threshold, the angle-finding module 114 at 422 performs cross-matching to estimate the joint DoD and DoA and unfold the angles. In cross-matching, the angle-finding module 114 uses μ.sub.1 and v.sub.2 as one pair for unfolding, while μ.sub.2 and v.sub.1 are used as one pair for unfolding using Equations (5) and (6)…”).
Regarding claim 8, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 9, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claims 4 and 5, the prior arts made of record individually or in
any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 4 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoffe et al. (US 20220214425 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar system used to determine direction of arrival (DOA) and direction of departure (DOD) where depending on the path of the radar signal, the DOA and DOD are either the same or different (see paragraphs 0384-0387).
Stephens (US 20050270227 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system using direct radar returns and multipath returns to determine target position (see Fig. 8).
OSHIMA et al. (US 20150355322 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a radar system using direct radar returns and multipath returns for cross correlation (see Figs. 1 and 4).
ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20200363522 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar device which determines signal return paths as either direct or multipath by determining mismatches between the paths (see Figs. 3A and 3B, and further see paragraphs 0050-0052).
Small (US 20200166622 A1) is considered close pertinent art the claimed invention as it discloses determining direction of arrival and direction of departure angles between direct targets and the radar device using direct and indirect radar paths (see Fig. 9, further see paragraph 0162, “As shown in FIG. 9 the apparatus 900 finds a non-negligible or above threshold signal 911 from a direction with bearing β, presumably arriving via reflection of a transmitted signal 803 from an object 928 at an as yet unknown range 938. If the apparatus 900 can measure the path length 917 for this indirect path signal 911 it can use that information, together with the range 919 to the transmitter 905 and the orientation a of its antenna array 902, to determine the so-called bistatic range ellipse 921.”).
Longman et al. [Longman, Oren, Shahar Villeval, and Igal Bilik. "Multipath ghost targets mitigation in automotive environments." 2021 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf21). IEEE, 2021] is considered close pertinent art the claimed invention as it discloses a radar propagation model where direction of arrival and direction of departure angles are determined for different radar paths (see Fig. 2 and II Signal Model).
Liu et al. [Liu, Chenwen, et al. "Multipath propagation analysis and ghost target removal for FMCW automotive radars." IET International Radar Conference (IET IRC 2020). Vol. 2020. IET, 2020.] is considered close pertinent art the claimed invention as it discloses a radar propagation model where direction of arrival and direction of departure angles are determined for different radar paths (see Fig. 2 and section 2 Mathematical Model).
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