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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2021-111830 filed 7/5/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2), in view of Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1), and further in view of JP 53-142891 [English Translation].
Regarding claim 1, Warnick et al. (‘518) discloses “a radar device (Figure 1: radar system), comprising:
a radar module (column 5 lines 49-55: Figure 1: radar system 100) including:
a high-frequency signal generator (column 7 line 14: transmitter 202 includes a waveform generator 216) that generates, as a transmission signal (column 5 lines 53-55: a transmitter 102 to transmit a signal 104 via a transmit antenna 106), a chirp signal with a signal frequency varying with time (column 7 lines 25-31: starting with the frequency divider 226, the example frequency divider 226 of FIG. 2 divides down the output 228 of the VCO 224 by a factor of 100, for a chirp waveform varying between a base frequency of 10 GHz and a maximum frequency of 10.5 GHz (i.e., a 10.25 MHz center frequency and a chirp bandwidth of 500 MHz)),
an array antenna (Figure 2: antennas 236 and 238) including at least one transmission antenna (Figure 2: antenna 236) transmitting the transmission signal and a plurality of reception antennas (Figure 2: antennas 238) each receiving a reception signal that results from reflection of the transmission signal off a target and returns to the array antenna (column 5 lines 55-57: a receiver 108 receives via a receive antenna 110 an echo 112 of the transmitted signal 104 that bounces off or is reflected by a target 114),
a mixer multiplying the transmission signal to be transmitted from the transmission antenna and the reception signal received by each of the reception antennas to generate an intermediate frequency signal (column 9 lines 48-51: The mixers 240 down convert respective RF output signals of the receive antenna array 238),
an AD converter converting the intermediate frequency signal from an analog signal to a digital signal (column 9 lines 52-55: he IF sub-system 210 includes anti-aliasing filters (one of which is designated at reference numeral 248) for the analog-to-digital converters (ADC) (one of which is designated at reference numeral 250); column 10 line 66 – column 11 line 2), and
a calculator (Figure 2: a processing sub-system 214) using an extended correlation matrix based on the intermediate frequency signal and calculates directions of arrival of the reception signals from two or more stationary targets (column 12 lines 9-11: Beamforming (block 1220) extracts direction of arrival information from the correlation matrices formed at block 1215 to form a range/angle image of the radar system's FOV; column 31 lines 2-9: beamforming extracts direction of arrival information from the correlation matrices…this system uses beamforming to form a range/angle image of the radar field of view and applies image processing techniques in the estimation of target locations…the image is comprised of a set of equally spaced beams in angle for every range bin. This method creates rich radar visualizations, and is helpful in debugging).”
Warnick et al. (‘518) does not explicitly disclose a calculator that “virtually increases number of the reception antennas through array extension using an extended correlation matrix based on the intermediate frequency signal”, “a vibration applying structure that irregularly applies, to the radar module, vibration with a magnitude smaller than range resolution of the radar module.”
Shaker et al. (‘834) relates to radar system. Shaker et al. (‘834) teaches a calculator that “virtually increases number of the reception antennas through array extension using an extended correlation matrix based on the intermediate frequency signal (paragraph 196: the radar makes an 8-element virtual receiver array by the MIMO radar technique; paragraph 197: in FIG. 37B, the transmit array has 2 elements and the receiver has 4 elements. So, the measurement in the second transmission has an additional phase shift with respect to the first chirp depending on the distance of the two transmit antennas. If this distance is equal to the width of the receiver array, so the measurement from the second transmission is equivalent to placing virtual Rx elements next to the actual Rx array—the blue array virtually extends the receiver due to the transmission from the second channel)”,
“vibration with a magnitude smaller than range resolution of the radar module (paragraph 174: the range of the objects and their vibration frequency, if they have a vibration, are estimated by finding ωb in (5) and the maximum value of the range phase spectrum, ψ(f)…the formulations are summarized in Table 1 with their maximum and minimum values…if there is no SNR limitation, the maximum detectable range is determined by the Nyquist sampling rate theorem, which sets a limit on the maximum allowable baseband frequency of fb…the minimum range detection can be expressed as c/2B where B is the sweeping bandwidth…a more practical range resolution relationship is provided in Table 1, which also considers the range FFT resolution with the size of N meaning that there are N samples in a chirp…the maximum frequency of vibration is related to the frame rate of 1/Tc at which the phase ψ(t) is sampled…the Nyquist sampling principle limits the maximum visible fv as it is equated in the table…the minimum value of fv is determined by the number of vibration FFT points, M, since the whole vibration spectrum is equally divided to M bins; paragraph 106: capable of detecting stationary objects; paragraph 198: Figure 37B: every other chirp is transmitted from a Tx antenna, so the extended array is formed by treating the measured samples of the odd chirps as received by the actual receivers, and the sample of even chirps as received by the virtual receivers….at each particular sample index, we have 8 samples 3705 across all channels—the actual and virtual channels…the received samples within a chirp period, are then stacked vertically, and the samples across multiple chirps, i.e. slow-time samples, are stacked horizontally…this makes a 3D array called radar cube 3710…an FFT is applied to the chirp samples, the vertical direction of the radar cube, to get the signal content in frequency across all virtual channels, which is representing the reflections from different ranges called range profiles...the angle of arrival can be obtained, for example, by exploiting a high-resolution, minimum variance distortion-less response (MVDR) Capon filter on each range bin).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518) with the teaching of Shaker et al. (‘834) for more precise stationary target detection (Shaker et al. (‘834) – paragraph 106). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518) and Shaker et al. (‘834)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using high frequency signals for radar monitoring.
(JP ‘891) relates to radar system. (JP ‘891) teaches “a vibration applying structure that irregularly applies, to the radar module, vibration (pages 1-2: if the target object is stationary, that is, if there is no relative velocity between the target object and the Doppler radar, no Doppler beat will occur even if there is a reflected wave…by vibrating the antenna of the Doppler radar, a relative velocity is generated between the target object and the Doppler radar…enables presence detection; page 2: the antenna attached to antenna 2 is the oscillator 8 used to vibrate antenna 2 in parallel to the radiation direction of radio waves, thereby causing a relative velocity between the stationary target 1 and the antenna 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834) with the teaching of (JP ‘891) for more precise stationary target detection ((JP ‘891) – page 2 first paragraph). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834) and (JP ‘891)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using high frequency signals for radar monitoring.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 1. Warnick et al. (‘518) further discloses “a vehicle comprising the radar device (column 1 lines 14-16: disclosure relates generally to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and, more particularly, to phased array radar systems for small UAVs).”
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 8, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 8. Warnick et al. (‘518)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the radar device is provided within a door handle.”
Shaker et al. (‘834) relates to radar system. Shaker et al. (‘834) teaches “the radar device is provided within a door handle (paragraph 85: A possible application of this would be in a door handle, where the user could unlock the door by placing their hand over the embedded radar sensor, which would be more natural than finding a specific location to press their finger).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)//(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Shaker et al. (‘834) for more precise stationary target detection (Shaker et al. (‘834) – paragraph 106). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), )/(JP ‘891) and Shaker et al. (‘834)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using high frequency signals for radar monitoring.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation], and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2024/0162630 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 1. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the calculator generates a correlation matrix based on the intermediate frequency signal acquired for each of the reception antennas and generates the extended correlation matrix by using the Khatri-Rao product using the generated correlation matrix.”
Ma et al. (‘630) relates to antenna array for radar system. Ma et al. (‘630) teaches “the calculator generates a correlation matrix based on the intermediate frequency signal acquired for each of the reception antennas and generates the extended correlation matrix by using the Khatri-Rao product using the generated correlation matrix (paragraph 89: the equivalent virtual array may be recovered by the full correlation matrix in the Equation (2), namely Khatri-Rao (KR) product… many virtual elements may repeatedly be calculated multiple times and the numbers of repeats for different virtual elements may be different to one another…it should be inversely weighted out).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Ma et al. (‘630) for high detection resolution (Ma et al. (‘630)– paragraph 3). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Ma et al. (‘630)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using antenna array in radar detection.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation]/Ma et al. (US 2024/0162630 A1), and further in view of Grant et al. (US 2020/0211337 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 2. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure irregularly applies vibration generated by a vibrator to the radar module.”
Grant et al. (‘337) relates to radar signal processing system. Grant et al. (‘337) teaches “the vibration applying structure irregularly applies vibration generated by a vibrator to the radar module (paragraph 50: actuator may be, for example, a linear resonance actuator (“LRA”); paragraph 70: examples of sensors include radars… sensors may be formed with smart materials, such as piezo-electric polymers, which can function as both a sensor and an actuator).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ma et al. (‘630) with the teaching of Grant et al. (‘337) for more precise target detection (Grant et al. (‘337) – paragraph 22). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Grant et al. (‘337)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Grant et al. (‘337) discloses the radar device of claim 3. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the vibrator is a linear resonance actuator.”
Grant et al. (‘337) relates to radar signal processing system Grant et al. (‘337) teaches “the vibrator is a linear resonance actuator (paragraph 50: actuator may be, for example, a linear resonance actuator (“LRA”); paragraph 70: examples of sensors include radars… sensors may be formed with smart materials, such as piezo-electric polymers, which can function as both a sensor and an actuator).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ma et al. (‘630) with the teaching of Grant et al. (‘337) for more precise target detection (Grant et al. (‘337) – paragraph 22). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Grant et al. (‘337)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation], and further in view of Ishimori et al. (US 10,481,251 B2).
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 8, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 8. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the radar device is provided within a door.”
Ishimori et al. (‘251) relates to a radar device and a target detecting method. Ishimori et al. (‘251) teaches “the radar device is provided within a door (column 3 lines 52-55: the radar device 1 may be installed at any other position such as a left or right part (for example, a left door mirror or a right door mirror).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Ishimori et al. (‘251) for improving the accuracy of detection on targets (Ishimori et al. (‘251)– column 1 lines 63-64). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Ishimori et al. (‘251)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using antenna array for target detection.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 8, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 8. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the radar device is provided behind a grille.”
Ishimori et al. (‘251) relates to a radar device and a target detecting method Ishimori et al. (‘251) teaches “the radar device is provided behind a grille (column 3 lines 49-55: Figure 1A, a radar device 1 is mounted, for example, inside the front grille of a vehicle MC…may be installed at any other position such as a rear grill).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Ishimori et al. (‘251) for improving the accuracy of detection on targets (Ishimori et al. (‘251)– column 1 lines 63-64). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Ishimori et al. (‘251)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using antenna array for target detection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation], and further in view of Singh (US 2020/0103522 A1).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 8, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 8. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the radar device is provided behind an emblem.”
Singh (‘522) relates to a radar unit assembly for a vehicle. Singh (‘522) teaches “the radar device is provided behind an emblem (paragraph 5: a radar unit assembly for a vehicle. A grille assembly is mounted to a vehicle body structure…the grille assembly includes a mounting receptacle. A radar unit is connected to the mounting receptacle. An emblem is connected to the mounting receptacle such that the emblem covers the radar unit).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Singh (‘522) for improved radar detection (Singh (‘522) – paragraph 3). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Singh (‘522)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, monitoring using radar sensor.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation], and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0349183 A1).
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 8, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 8. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the radar device is provided behind or within a bumper.”
Lee et al. (‘183) relates to vehicle radar device. Lee et al. (‘183) teaches “the radar device is provided behind or within a bumper (paragraph 182: the radome of the radar device can be disposed inside of the bumper, the grille, or the body of the vehicle, or be disposed as a part of a component constituting the exterior surface of the vehicle, such as a part of the bumper, the grille, or the body of the vehicle…the radome can improve the aesthetics of the vehicle and provide the convenience of mounting the radar sensor).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Lee et al. (‘183) for more reliable target detection (Lee et al. (‘183) – paragraph 182). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Lee et al. (‘183)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using array antenna for radar target detection.
Claims 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation]/Ishimori et al. (US 10,481,251 B2), and further in view of Voigi (US 2022/0363258 A1).
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 9, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) discloses the radar device of claim 9. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a lateral direction of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a lateral direction of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used. Motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators…motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5. This system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891), Ishimori et al. (‘251) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 13, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) discloses the radar device of claim 13. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used…motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators…motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5… this system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891), Ishimori et al. (‘251) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 9, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) discloses the radar device of claim 9. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used. Motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators…motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5 …this system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Ishimori et al. (‘251) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891), Ishimori et al. (‘251) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation]/Lee et al. (US 2021/0349183 A1), and further in view of Voigi (US 2022/0363258 A1).
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 12, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 12. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a direction perpendicular to the bumper in plan view of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a direction perpendicular to the bumper in plan view of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used…motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators…motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5…this system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control)1.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891)/Lee et al. (‘183) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891), Lee et al. (‘183) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Claim 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 10,317,518 B2)/Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1)/JP 53-142891 [English Translation], and further in view of Voigi (US 2022/0363258 A1).
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on claim 11, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 11. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a lateral direction of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a lateral direction of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used…motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators. Motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5 …this system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring sytem.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on claim 11, Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) discloses the radar device of claim 11. Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.”
Voigi (‘258) relates to vehicle radar sensor. Voigi (‘258) teaches “the vibration applying structure causes the vibration in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (paragraph 35: a device may therefore include a motor vehicle, a driver assistance system for automated lateral guidance and/or transverse guidance for a motor vehicle, a surroundings detection device, in particular, a camera, a LIDAR and/or a radar, an actuator system, in particular an actuator system for automated lateral control and/or longitudinal control, a centralized or decentralized control unit for executing one of the aforementioned devices; paragraph 41: radar, LIDAR or other suitable sensor types may, of course, alternatively or additionally also be used…motor vehicle 1 further includes a processing unit 4 (also control unit) for evaluating the sensor data and/or for carrying out the method and/or for activating the actuators…motor vehicle 1 further includes an actuator system 5…this system is made up, for example, of an actuator 5a for lateral control as well as an actuator 5b for longitudinal control).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar device of Warnick et al. (‘518)/Shaker et al. (‘834)/(JP ‘891) with the teaching of Voigi (‘258) for direction specific target detection (Voigi (‘258) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Warnick et al. (‘518), Shaker et al. (‘834), (JP ‘891) and Voigi (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, sensor monitoring system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“the vibration applying structure includes an elastic body supporting the radar module and having an elastic constant to amplify vibration caused in a vehicle body of a vehicle in which the radar device is mounted, based on an engine included in the vehicle idling, and the elastic body amplifies the vibration caused in the vehicle body and irregularly transmits the amplified vibration to the radar module.”
Claims 6-7 depends on claim 5, and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“the vibration applying structure includes an elastic body supporting the radar module and having an elastic constant to amplify vibration caused in a vehicle body of a vehicle in which the radar device is mounted, based on an engine included in the vehicle idling, and the elastic body amplifies the vibration caused in the vehicle body and irregularly transmits the amplified vibration to the radar module.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng et al. (US 2022/0187158 A1) describes that the full-field vibration information extraction module comprises a full-field target and/or measurement point resolving and positioning module and a target and/or measurement point vibration displacement time sequence estimation module…the full-field vibration information extraction module is configured to resolve and position targets and/or measurement points within the full field based on the acquired multi-channel intermediate frequency baseband signals, and extract a vibration displacement time sequence of each target and/or measurement point (paragraph 79); the display and analysis module is configured to display information including vibration displacement time-domain waveforms of each target and/or measurement point, and analyze the features, such as the vibration amplitude, frequency and full-field vibration characteristic distribution, of each target and/or measurement point as required (paragraph 80).
Hammes et al. (US 2020/0011968 A1) describes After the formation of data-cube, a three-dimensional matched filter is applied with a subsequent squaring…since the matched filter correlates the received signal with its conjugate complex signal, the matched filter operation in is and m direction has the form of a DFT…the matched filter for the inter-chirp dimension ic has to extract Doppler and angular information simultaneously…during the extraction, the angular information in ic direction has to be synchronized with the angular information in m direction…the synchronization problem is solved by zero padding in m dimension such that the spatial DFT wave number resolution is proportional to the inverse virtual array size…while p denotes the index for the Doppler dimension, the index q denotes the angular dimension…the angular resolution depends on the virtual array size (paragraph 78).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
1 Paragraph 59 of the instant application describes “The longitudinal direction of the vehicle 7 is a direction perpendicular to bumpers installed in the front and back sides of the vehicle 7 in plan view of the vehicle 7. The lateral direction is a direction perpendicular to bumpers fitted in the right and left sides of the vehicle 7 in plan view of the vehicle 7.”