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 .
Status of Claims
Pursuant of the previously filed restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected claims 1-4 and 13-20 for examination and has added dependent claims 21-26. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 13-26 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023, 06/27/2025 and 10/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"signal processing unit" in claims 13, 19 and 20.
“control unit” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 13-20 and 21-26 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 method for detecting target information, applied to a Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) sensor, comprising:
receiving a multi-channel echo signal;
processing the multi-channel echo signal to obtain receiving vectors of a first target and a second target respectively;
calculating a correlation coefficient between the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target; and
determining a direction-of-arrival approximation degree between the first target and the second target according to the correlation coefficient.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is 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 limitations of:
“processing the multi-channel echo signal to obtain receiving vectors of a first target and a second target respectively;
calculating a correlation coefficient between the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target; and
determining a direction-of-arrival approximation degree between the first target and the second target according to the correlation coefficient.”
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and are simply mathematical manipulation 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, “receiving a multi-channel echo signal;” 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. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 14-20 and 21-26 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 1-4, 13-20 and 21-26 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koppelaar et al. (US 20230152435 A1), hereinafter Koppelaar.
Regarding claim 1, Koppelaar discloses
A method for detecting target information, applied to a Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) sensor (see Fig. 3 antenna array 300 which is MIMO sensor and used for target detection, further see paragraph 0070, “FIG. 3 shows an example antenna array 300 with antenna elements 301-308 separated by distances d of different fractions of the operating wavelength. For example, the antenna array 300 may be configured to operate according to a MIMO scheme for which the positions of the two virtual antenna elements 301, 305 are indicative of the positions of the transmitters and are separated by 13 λ/2, and the virtual antenna elements 301, 302, 303, 303 are indicative of the receive array with antenna spacing (0, 1, 4, 6)λ/2, that in this specific example forms a Minimum Redundancy Array.”), comprising:
receiving a multi-channel echo signal (see Fig. 3, further see paragraph 0095, “Thus, to summarise, the apparatus 101 comprising the processor 102 is configured to receive an input dataset, x, indicative of radar signals, x.sub.1, . . . , x.sub.N, received at a plurality of (real and/or virtual) antenna elements 107-111, 301-308, N, wherein the radar signals have reflected from a plurality of targets, namely K=2 targets 105, 106 in the example of FIG. 1);
processing the multi-channel echo signal to obtain receiving vectors of a first target and a second target respectively (see paragraph 0095, “Thus, to summarise, the apparatus 101 comprising the processor 102 is configured to receive an input dataset, x, indicative of radar signals, x.sub.1, . . . , x.sub.N, received at a plurality of (real and/or virtual) antenna elements 107-111, 301-308, N, wherein the radar signals have reflected from a plurality of targets, namely K=2 targets 105, 106 in the example of FIG. 1. The input dataset may comprise a snapshot from a Range-Doppler bin after Range-Doppler processing has been performed.”);
calculating a correlation coefficient between the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target (see paragraph 0118, “In one or more examples, the apparatus 100 is configured to determine Y.sub.k by performing a correlation comprising calculating an inner product between direction-of-arrival-angle vector a and the input dataset x to obtain a complex value expression, wherein the look up table comprises the evaluation of the complex value expression over the search space, that is for each discrete point in the search space.”, where each discrete point in the search space is for each target obtained, further see paragraph 0105); and
determining a direction-of-arrival approximation degree between the first target and the second target according to the correlation coefficient (see paragraph 0133-0134, “In one or more examples, the apparatus 100 is configured to, prior to said search for the set of directions of arrival angles, determine a second look up table, said second look up table providing an association between each of the candidate direction of arrival angles based on the discrete points of the search space for a plurality of targets, K, and α.sub.k,n, wherein α.sub.k,n=(a.sup.H(θ.sub.k) a(θ.sub.n))/N wherein a.sup.H(θ.sub.k) comprises a Hermitian transpose of the vector a for a candidate direction of arrival angle θ.sub.k, a(θ.sub.n) comprises the vector for a different candidate direction of arrival angle θ.sub.n for each target, wherein k and n represent indexes for stepping through the search space” further see paragraph 0118, “In one or more examples, the apparatus 100 is configured to determine Y.sub.k by performing a correlation comprising calculating an inner product between direction-of-arrival-angle vector a and the input dataset x to obtain a complex value expression, wherein the look up table comprises the evaluation of the complex value expression over the search space, that is for each discrete point in the search space.”, where the look up table determines a direction of arrival of the targets based on the correlation calculation).
Regarding claim 2, Koppelaar further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving vectors comprise range information and velocity information (see paragraph 0065, “DoA estimation may be carried out for each Range-Doppler bin for which sufficient energy is detected. In a rich radar scene this means that DoA estimation may have to be carried out many times within a system cycle. For that reason it is important that the corresponding complexity of the DoA estimation process is low.”, where the receiving vectors must contain “range” and “doppler” information for the DOA estimation to be varied out for reach range-doppler bin).
Regarding claim 3, Koppelaar further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the correlation coefficient between the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target comprises:
performing a conjugate correlation processing on the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target to obtain the correlation coefficient (see paragraph 0139, “The correlation of the antenna response x with the complex conjugate of K single target responses is given by…”);
wherein a value of the correlation coefficient is positively correlated with the direction-of-arrival approximation degree between the first target and the second target (see paragraph 0133, “In one or more examples, the apparatus 100 is configured to, prior to said search for the set of directions of arrival angles, determine a second look up table, said second look up table providing an association between each of the candidate direction of arrival angles based on the discrete points of the search space for a plurality of targets, K, and α.sub.k,n, wherein α.sub.k,n=(a.sup.H(θ.sub.k) a(θ.sub.n))/N wherein a.sup.H(θ.sub.k) comprises a Hermitian transpose of the vector a for a candidate direction of arrival angle θ.sub.k, a(θ.sub.n) comprises the vector for a different candidate direction of arrival angle θ.sub.n for each target, wherein k and n represent indexes for stepping through the search space; and [0134] wherein said search comprises a step of retrieving α.sub.k,n from the look up table for evaluating an objective function that contains the expression…”, where using the look up table is “positively correlating” the DOA with the correlation coefficient (i.e. an association between each of the candidate direction of arrival angles based on the discrete points of the search space for a plurality of targets) ).
Regarding claim 4, Koppelaar further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first target and the second target are different targets detected in a same frame of the multi-channel echo signal (see paragraph 0061, “When multiple targets 105, 106 are reflecting, a linear combination of these signals will be received. Because of the linear combination, both the amplitude and the phase per antenna element 107-111 will vary and has to be used to estimate the DoA angles of the targets 105, 106.”, see paragraph 0065, “DoA estimation may be carried out for each Range-Doppler bin for which sufficient energy is detected. In a rich radar scene this means that DoA estimation may have to be carried out many times within a system cycle. For that reason it is important that the corresponding complexity of the DoA estimation process is low.”); or
the first target and the second target are same or different targets detected in continuous frames of the multi-channel echo signal (see paragraph 0061, “When multiple targets 105, 106 are reflecting, a linear combination of these signals will be received. Because of the linear combination, both the amplitude and the phase per antenna element 107-111 will vary and has to be used to estimate the DoA angles of the targets 105, 106.”, see paragraph 0065, “DoA estimation may be carried out for each Range-Doppler bin for which sufficient energy is detected. In a rich radar scene this means that DoA estimation may have to be carried out many times within a system cycle. For that reason it is important that the corresponding complexity of the DoA estimation process is low.”).
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, Koppelaar further discloses
The MIMO sensor of claim 13, wherein the plurality of transceiver channels comprise:
a plurality of antennas comprising a combination of at least one transmitter antenna and a plurality of receiver antennas (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, see paragraph 0055, “The reflected radar signal 104A from the first target 105 has a direction of arrival angle of θ.sub.1 at the antenna elements 107-111. The reflected radar signal 104B from the second target 106 has a direction of arrival angle θ.sub.2 at the antenna elements 107-111. However, the radar signals 104 as received by the antenna elements 107-111 comprises a combination of the signals 104A and 104B and noise. It will also be appreciated that the direction of arrival angle may represents the angle of arrival of the reflected radar signals 104A, 104B in one or both of an azimuth angle and an elevation angle”), or a combination of a plurality of transmitter antennas and at least one receiver antenna;
a transmitter unit connected with the at least one transmitter antenna or the plurality of transmitter antennas among the plurality of antennas to provide at least one transmitter channel (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, see paragraph 0053, “The antenna array 103 comprises a plurality of antenna elements 107-111. One or more of the antenna elements may be configured to transmit radar signals, which may comprise a FMCW chirp 112, that will reflect from the targets 105, 106. Two or more of the antenna elements 107-111 may be configured to receive the reflected radar signals 104A, 104B from the targets 105, 106.”); and
a receiver unit connected with the at least one receiver antenna or the plurality of receiver antennas among the plurality of antennas to provide at least one receiver channel (see paragraph 0053, “The antenna array 103 comprises a plurality of antenna elements 107-111. One or more of the antenna elements may be configured to transmit radar signals, which may comprise a FMCW chirp 112, that will reflect from the targets 105, 106. Two or more of the antenna elements 107-111 may be configured to receive the reflected radar signals 104A, 104B from the targets 105, 106.”),
wherein a total number of the at least one transmitter channel and the at least one receiver channel is greater than or equal to 3 (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, further see paragraph 0053, “The antenna array 103 comprises a plurality of antenna elements 107-111. One or more of the antenna elements may be configured to transmit radar signals, which may comprise a FMCW chirp 112, that will reflect from the targets 105, 106. Two or more of the antenna elements 107-111 may be configured to receive the reflected radar signals 104A, 104B from the targets 105, 106.”).
Regarding claim 17, Koppelaar further discloses
The MIMO sensor of claim 16, further comprising:
a control unit connected with the transmitter unit and the receiver unit, the control unit being configured to control the transmitter unit to generate a transmitting signal to be converted into a radar beam via the at least one transmitter antenna or the plurality of transmitter antennas among the plurality of antennas, and to control the receiver unit to obtain a multi-channel echo signal via the at least one receiver antenna or the plurality of receiver antennas among the plurality of antennas (see Fig. 1, it is implicit that there is a control unit to transmit the signal converted into a radar beam via the plurality of antennas and to receive the reflected signals, this is how a radar system works).
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
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) 19-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppelaar et al. (US 20230152435 A1) in view of Tyagi et al. (US 20210293927 A1), hereinafter Tyagi.
Regarding claim 19, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The MIMO sensor of claim 18,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to obtain the receiving vectors of the first target and the second target respectively in adjacent frames of the continuous frames (see paragraph 0054, “In some implementations, the tracking module 502 and the feature-extraction module 504 rely on information from previous frames in order to generate the trace data 508 and the feature data 510, respectively. For example, the tracking module 502 can detect the object 108 within a current frame of low-level data 310 based on a detection of the object 108 within a previous frame of the low-level data 310. As an example, the tracking module 502 can apply a nearest-neighbor matching algorithm or a correlation-intensity algorithm across multiple frames of the low-level data 310 to associate an object in a current frame with an object in a previous frame. The tracking module 502 can also apply various tracking algorithms to predict a position of the object 108 within the current frame based on the information provided by the previous frame.”, further see paragraph 0095, “tracking the at least one object across multiple frames of the low-level data,” where multiple objects are also tracked).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 20, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The MIMO sensor of claim 18,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to determine whether the first target and the second target match a same actual object according to the correlation coefficient (see paragraph 0054, “In some implementations, the tracking module 502 and the feature-extraction module 504 rely on information from previous frames in order to generate the trace data 508 and the feature data 510, respectively. For example, the tracking module 502 can detect the object 108 within a current frame of low-level data 310 based on a detection of the object 108 within a previous frame of the low-level data 310. As an example, the tracking module 502 can apply a nearest-neighbor matching algorithm or a correlation-intensity algorithm across multiple frames of the low-level data 310 to associate an object in a current frame with an object in a previous frame. The tracking module 502 can also apply various tracking algorithms to predict a position of the object 108 within the current frame based on the information provided by the previous frame.”).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 21, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the multi-channel echo signal includes successive frames and the first target and the second target are detected from adjacent frames of the successive frames, the method further comprising: determining whether the first target and the second target match a same actual object based on the correlation coefficient (see paragraph 0054, “In some implementations, the tracking module 502 and the feature-extraction module 504 rely on information from previous frames in order to generate the trace data 508 and the feature data 510, respectively. For example, the tracking module 502 can detect the object 108 within a current frame of low-level data 310 based on a detection of the object 108 within a previous frame of the low-level data 310. As an example, the tracking module 502 can apply a nearest-neighbor matching algorithm or a correlation-intensity algorithm across multiple frames of the low-level data 310 to associate an object in a current frame with an object in a previous frame. The tracking module 502 can also apply various tracking algorithms to predict a position of the object 108 within the current frame based on the information provided by the previous frame.”).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 22, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 21,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the adjacent frames comprise a first frame and a second frame, and the first target and the second target are targets detected in the first frame and the second frame, respectively (see paragraph 0054, “In some implementations, the tracking module 502 and the feature-extraction module 504 rely on information from previous frames in order to generate the trace data 508 and the feature data 510, respectively. For example, the tracking module 502 can detect the object 108 within a current frame of low-level data 310 based on a detection of the object 108 within a previous frame of the low-level data 310. As an example, the tracking module 502 can apply a nearest-neighbor matching algorithm or a correlation-intensity algorithm across multiple frames of the low-level data 310 to associate an object in a current frame with an object in a previous frame. The tracking module 502 can also apply various tracking algorithms to predict a position of the object 108 within the current frame based on the information provided by the previous frame.”); wherein the method further comprises: processing multi-channel echo signals of the adjacent frames respectively to obtain multi- channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the first frame and the second frame (see paragraph 0054, further see for support paragraph 0040, “During reception, the low-level data generator 218 accepts digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M from the receive channels 302-1 to 302-M. The digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M include digital time-domain samples of a received radar signal. In general, the digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M represent raw or unprocessed complex radar data. The low-level data generator 218 performs one or more operations to generate low-level data 310 based on the digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M. As an example, the low-level data generator 218 can use the Fourier transform module 304 and/or the digital beamforming module 306 to generate the low-level data 310, which includes amplitude information for one or more sets of range bins, Doppler bins, azimuth bins, or elevation bins.”); detecting the first target by searching for a peak in the multi-channel range-Doppler two- dimensional data of the first frame; and detecting the second target by searching for a peak in the multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the second frame (see Fig. 5, where a range doppler map is used to determine the tracking data using peak intensity data and the targets are tracked over time in multiple frames, further see paragraphs 0049-0054).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 23, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 22,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the first target corresponds to a first set of range-Doppler units in the multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the first frame, and the second target corresponds to a second set of range-Doppler units in the multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the second frame (see paragraph 0054, further see for support paragraph 0040, “During reception, the low-level data generator 218 accepts digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M from the receive channels 302-1 to 302-M. The digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M include digital time-domain samples of a received radar signal. In general, the digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M represent raw or unprocessed complex radar data. The low-level data generator 218 performs one or more operations to generate low-level data 310 based on the digital beat signals 308-1 to 308-M. As an example, the low-level data generator 218 can use the Fourier transform module 304 and/or the digital beamforming module 306 to generate the low-level data 310, which includes amplitude information for one or more sets of range bins, Doppler bins, azimuth bins, or elevation bins.”), a coordinate parameter of each unit in the first set of range-Doppler units and the second set of range-Doppler units in corresponding range-Doppler two-dimensional data comprises range information and velocity information (see Fig. 5, where a range doppler map is used to determine the tracking data using peak intensity data at bins (i.e. a coordinate parameter) of the range-doppler bins of the range-doppler map and the targets are tracked over time in multiple frames, further see paragraphs 0049-0054).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 24, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 23,
Tyagi discloses,
wherein the receiving vector of the first target comprises a first set of elements, the first set of elements respectively representing complex number values of the first set of range-Doppler units at corresponding coordinates on a range- Doppler two-dimensional complex plane, and the receiving vector of the second target comprises a second set of elements, the second set of elements respectively representing complex number values of the second set of range-Doppler units at corresponding coordinates on the range- Doppler two-dimensional complex plane (see paragraphs 0038-0040, “The low-level data generator 218 can include a Fourier transform module 304, which performs one or more Fourier transform operations, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) operation. Using the Fourier transform module 304, the low-level data generator 218 can generate a range-Doppler map, which includes complex numbers (e.g., in-phase and quadrature components) associated with different range bins and Doppler bins…”, further see paragraphs 0049-0054).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Regarding claim 26, Koppelaar discloses [Note: what Koppelaar fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1,
Tyagi discloses,
further comprising: determining whether the first target and the second target match a same actual object according to the direction of arrival approximation degree (see paragraph 0051-0052, “The tracking module 502 generates trace data 508 based on the low-level data 310. The trace data 508 includes a portion of the low-level data 310 information for each object 108 detected by the tracking module 502. In other words, the trace data 508 includes amplitude information for one or more cells 410 that are associated with an object 108, which is referred to as a trace. The trace can have similar dimensions as the low-level data 310. For example, the trace can include cells 410 across the four dimensions of the range-Doppler-azimuth-elevation map. The quantity of cells 410 across each dimension of the trace can be similar or different….In some implementations, the traces for different objects 108 can have a same quantity of cells 410. In this case, the tracking module 502 can center a window around a cell 410 with the highest amplitude and provide the cells 410 within the window as the trace for that object 108. In other implementations, the traces for different objects 108 can have different quantities of cells 410 based on differences in the distribution of the object 108 across one or more dimensions of the low-level data 310. By tailoring the size of the trace for each object 108, the tracking module 502 can reduce the probability of the trace including other cells 410 that are not associated with the object 108 (e.g., other cells that are associated with noise or another object). In contrast to other types of radar systems that use detection-level data for classification, the trace data 508 can include amplitudes that are less than the detection threshold in order to provide additional information for classifying the object 108.”, where determining that the trace belongs to the same object using the cells 410 across the four dimensions of the range-Doppler-azimuth-elevation map is “according to the direction of arrival approximation degree”).
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 Tyagi into the invention of Koppelaar. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose MIMO radar systems for target detection and direction estimation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to track and classify objects across successive frames to accurately determine motion and direction data for the objects.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) 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 claim 25, 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 claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ARKIND (US 20230375690 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar system which calculates correlation matrices and uses the eigenvalue of the correlation matrices to determine direction of arrivals.
IWASA et al. (US 20220003835 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar system which calculates correlation matrices and uses the eigenvalue of the correlation matrices to determine direction of arrivals (see paragraph 0139-0140).
Dent et al. (US 20200150256 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar system which calculates correlation matrices for targets being tracked over successive frames.
KISHIGAMI (US 20200096595 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a MIMO radar system which determined direction of arrivals for targets using correlation matrix data.
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