DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Izadian and the rejection of dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 103, the applicant states that the prior art does not disclose or suggest at least, “wherein the vertical offset is selected such that, for at least one common object, one radar sensor unit receives a constructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals emitted to and received from the at least one common object while the other radar sensor unit is receives a destructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals emitted to and received from the at least one common object” as recited by independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Izadian discloses on paragraph [0015], “a difference between the first height and the second height may be configured to [emph.] generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect.,” and ”wherein the first signal is associated with a first multipath effect, and wherein the first radar is installed on a vehicle at a first height […] a second signal from the second radar, wherein the second signal is associated with a second multipath effect” on paragraph [0024]. Accordingly, Izadian discloses selecting a height difference between two radar sensors in order to produce a particular multipath effect in each individual sensor, see emphasis above. Figure 3 parts 104 and 304 of Izadian further depicts power curves for the first and second radar sensors, 102 and 202 respectively. Point 305 of the power curve demonstrates constructive interference in radar sensor 102 and destructive interference in radar sensor 202. The Examiner maintains that the height difference between sensors 102 and 202 may be selected to generate constructive or deconstructive interference in a particular received signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
Regarding claim 3 and similarly claims 4, 14, and 15 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “approximately 4 to 6%.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed “approximately 4 to 6%” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The approximation of the range 4% to 6% places a narrow numerical range within a broader range, obscuring the boundaries of the claimed range and produces confusion over the intended scope of the claim. The use of narrow and broad ranges in the same claim render the claim indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)). It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “approximately 4 to 6%”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izadian (US20210199760A1).
Regarding claim 1, Izadian discloses
A radar system comprising: at least first and second radar sensor units having at least a partial common field of view (FIG.2, Parts 102&202); the first radar sensor unit positioned at a first location on a vehicle and the second radar unit positioned at a second location on the vehicle (“This advantage may be attributed to using multiple radars placed at different heights of a vehicle” [0014]); the first and second locations comprising at least a vertical offset from each other (“The first height and the second height may be different” [0015]); wherein the vertical offset is selected (“ a difference between the first height and the second height may be configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0015]) such that, for at least one common object, one radar sensor unit receives a constructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals emitted to and received from the at least one common object (FIG.3, Parts.104 and 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012] & “Multipath effect may cause inaccurate detection of the target 130 or even miss detection of the target 130. FIG. 1B illustrates example signal power curve for the single radar resulted from multipath effect” [0012])while the other radar sensor unit is receiving a destructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals emitted to and received from the at least one common object (FIG.3, Part304 & 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the first and second radar sensor units each comprise a vertical height position on the vehicle (“the first radar is installed on a vehicle at a first height” [0024]& “determine, for a second radar, a second height” [0024]) and the vertical offset comprises a difference in the vertical height positions (“the first height and the second height are different” [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the vertical offset comprises a value approximately 4 to 6% of a vertical height position of the first radar sensor unit (“ the height difference may be at least one meter” [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the vertical offset comprises the first radar sensor unit having a first vertical height position (“The first height and the second height may be different” [0015]) and the second radar sensor unit having a second vertical height position comprising 4 to 6% higher than the first vertical height position (“ the height difference may be at least one meter” [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the vertical offset provides a signal phase difference between at least the direct and ground bounce signals received by each of the first and second radar sensor units (“ a difference between the first height and the second height is configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the vertical offset provides a signal phase difference between at least the direct and ground bounce signals received by each of the first and second radar sensor units (“ a difference between the first height and the second height is configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0024]) and wherein the signal phase difference generates the constructive combination of signals for the first radar sensor unit (FIG.3, Part.304) while the second radar sensor unit receives the destructive combination of signals (FIG.3, Part.104).
Regarding claim 7, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the first and second radar sensor units each comprise an amplitude factor and wherein a vertical offset value of the vertical offset comprises a value representing when one radar sensor unit has a greater amplitude factor than the other radar sensor unit (FIG.3, Parts.106&107).
Regarding claim 8, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the first and second radar sensor units each comprise an amplitude factor and a vertical offset value of the vertical offset comprises a value representing when one radar sensor unit has a maximum amplitude factor (FIG.3, Part.304) while the other radar sensor unit has a minimum (FIG.3, Part.104) amplitude factor( FIG.3, Parts.106&107).
Regarding claim 9, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein a vertical offset value of the vertical offset comprises a value representing when one radar sensor unit has a maximum constructive combination of signals (FIG.3, 305) while the other radar sensor unit has a maximum destructive combination of signals (FIG.3, Part.105, 106 & 107).
Regarding claim 11, Izadian discloses
A radar system comprising: at least first and second radar sensor units having at least a partial common field of view (FIG.2, Parts 102&202); the first radar sensor unit positioned at a first location on a vehicle and the second radar sensor unit positioned at a second location on the vehicle (“This advantage may be attributed to using multiple radars placed at different heights of a vehicle” [0014]); the first and second locations comprising at least a vertical offset from each other (“The first height and the second height may be different” [0015]); wherein the vertical offset is selected (“ a difference between the first height and the second height may be configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0015]) such that, for at least one common object, one radar sensor unit receives a constructive combination of direct and ground bounce signals (FIG.3, Parts.104 and 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012] & “Multipath effect may cause inaccurate detection of the target 130 or even miss detection of the target 130. FIG. 1B illustrates example signal power curve for the single radar resulted from multipath effect” [0012]) while the other radar sensor unit receives a destructive combination of direct and ground bounce signals relative to the common object (FIG.3, Part304 & 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 11 wherein the first and second radar sensor units each comprise a vertical height position on the vehicle (“the first radar is installed on a vehicle at a first height” [0024]& “determine, for a second radar, a second height” [0024]) and the vertical offset comprises a difference in the vertical height positions (“the first height and the second height are different” [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 11 wherein the constructive combination of the signals comprises a maximum constructive combination (FIG.3, 305) and the destructive combination comprises a maximum destructive combination (FIG.3, Part.105, 106 & 107).
Regarding claim 14, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 11 wherein the vertical offset comprises a value approximately 4 to 6% or more of a vertical height position of the first radar sensor unit (“ the height difference may be at least one meter” [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 11 wherein the vertical offset comprises the first radar sensor unit having a first vertical height position (“The first height and the second height may be different” [0015]) and the second radar sensor unit having a second vertical height position comprising 4 to 6% higher than the first vertical height position (“ the height difference may be at least one meter” [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, Izadian discloses
A method comprising: positioning a first radar sensor unit at a first location (“ the first radar may be installed at a first location of the vehicle” [0015]); positioning a second radar sensor unit at a second location (“The second radar may be installed at a second location of the vehicle” [0015]); illuminating at least one target by the first and second radar sensor units (FIG.2, Parts 102&202); reading the range data from each radar sensor unit (“analyze the collected data for target detection” [0011]); changing the vertical location of the second radar sensor unit (“determining the difference by defining a minimum height difference and adjusting the difference according to the target detection rate” [0015]); determining, for at least one target illuminated by the first and second radar sensor units, which vertical location provides one radar sensor unit with (“ a difference between the first height and the second height may be configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0015]) receipt of a constructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals (FIG.3, Parts.104 and 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012] & “Multipath effect may cause inaccurate detection of the target 130 or even miss detection of the target 130. FIG. 1B illustrates example signal power curve for the single radar resulted from multipath effect” [0012]) while the other radar sensor unit is in receipt of a destructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals (FIG.3, Part304 & 305 & “The radar signals from target 130 may reach an object 135 (Object 1) via path 120.” [0012]).and positioning the second radar sensor unit at the determined vertical location that provides one radar sensor unit with receipt of a constructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals while the other radar sensor unit is in receipt of a destructive combination of one or more direct and ground bounce signals (“The second radar may be installed at a second location of the vehicle” [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Izadian discloses
The method of claim 16 wherein the determining which vertical location provides one radar sensor unit with constructive range data when the other radar sensor unit has destructive range data comprises: determining which vertical location provides one radar sensor unit with maximum constructive range data (FIG.3, 305) when the other radar sensor unit has maximum destructive range data (FIG.3, Part.105, 106 & 107).
Regarding claim 18, Izadian discloses
The method of claim 16 wherein changing the vertical location of the second radar sensor unit comprises introducing a phase difference between (“determining the difference by defining a minimum height difference and adjusting the difference according to the target detection rate” [0015])direct and ground bounce signals of the first and second radar sensor units for a common target (“ a difference between the first height and the second height is configured to generate a mitigation of the first multipath effect and the second multipath effect” [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Izadian discloses
The method of claim 16 wherein determining which vertical location provides one radar sensor unit with constructive range data when the other radar sensor unit has destructive range data comprises iteratively changing the vertical location of one radar sensor unit (“Another way may be determining the difference by defining a minimum height difference and adjusting the difference according to the target detection rate” [0015]).
Regarding claim 20, Izadian discloses
The method of claim 16 wherein determining which vertical location provides one radar sensor unit with constructive range data when the other radar sensor unit has destructive range data comprises changing an amplitude factor associated with one radar sensor unit (FIG.3, Parts.106&107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izadian (US20210199760A1) in view of LEVIN(US20140106776A1).
Regarding claim 10, Izadian discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the vertical offset comprises an amplitude factor for each radar sensor unit comprising; […] wherein the first radar system comprises a first (delta)value and the second radar system comprises a second (delta)r value that is different (“these two received signals may interfere with each other, which is known as multipath effect. Multipath effect may cause inaccurate detection of the target 130 or even miss detection of the target 130” [0012]) from the first (delta)r value (FIG.2, Parts.102, 202 & 135)
Izadian discloses two radar systems wherein the (delta)R values for each system are different. Izadian does not explicitly disclose the amplitude formula as recited by claim 10. LEVIN teaches in the same field of endeavor of multipath fading mitigation. Levin discloses, wherein the vertical offset comprises an amplitude factor for each radar sensor unit comprising: [Formula not reproduced] wherein p is the reflectivity of the reflecting surface, f is the signal carrier frequency, c is the speed of light, and (Delta)r is the difference between a vertical direct and vertical ground bounce range to the object (“a received signal amplitude may not be constant, but rather may be a random variable, which may be distributed according to a distribution, e.g. a Rician distribution function”[0073]).
LEVIN teaches in the same field of endeavor of multipath fading mitigation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Izadian with the teachings of LEVIN to incorporate the features of calculating an amplitude factor so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement prediction ([0086], LEVIN). Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Blaes(US12360212B2) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.6, ll.7-10] “The ground plane determination component 142 can also be configured to identify points or returns within the radar data 120 that are associated with reflected returns (or multipath returns, ghost returns, phantom returns, or the like).”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights