DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kumon, the Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose or suggest “a frequency analysis unit configured to perform a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform on a beat signal that is a frequency difference signal between transmission and reception signals of the radar waves” as recited by independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In support of this position the Applicant points to paragraph [0065] of Kumon arguing that although the selected paragraph discloses a fast Fourier transformation (FFT) it does not explicitly state the FFT is two dimensional. In response the Applicant is reminded that it is for the Applicants benefit that portions of the cited reference(s) have been. 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. Paragraph [0070] of Kumon clarifies that the FFT mentioned in paragraph [0065] comprises a distance FFT and azimuth FFT. As the FFT of paragraph [0065] comprises a distance FFT and azimuth FFT, it is a two dimensional FFT. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
The Applicant further argues that Kumon fails to teach “a peak information acquisition unit configured to extract, from peaks of a power spectrum calculated by the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform in the frequency analysis unit, peaks within a predefined distance-velocity region preset as a raindrop condition, and acquire peak information that is information about the extracted peaks” as recited by independent claim 1. Of the above limitation, the Applicant particularly points to “a power spectrum calculated by the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform” and “peaks within a predefined distance-velocity region” and suggesting neither feature is taught by Kumon. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous action, paragraph [0019] of Kumon discloses a peak information acquisition unit configured to extract from peaks of a power spectrum. Paragraph [0070] discloses that the power spectrum is calculated by two-dimensional fast Fourier transform. Paragraphs [0069] and [0070] further clarify that the extracted peaks correspond to a predefined “close range.” As the aforementioned “close range” corresponds to “a predefined distance-velocity region”, the Examiner maintains that the prior art discloses “a peak information acquisition unit configured to extract, from peaks of a power spectrum calculated by the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform in the frequency analysis unit, peaks within a predefined distance-velocity region preset as a raindrop condition.”
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, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUMON(US20040183713A1).
Regarding claim 1, KUMON discloses
A radar device for a vehicle (“vehicle radar apparatus” [0001]), configured to transmit radar waves modulated in frequency according to a FCM modulation scheme and detect a target by receiving radar waves reflected by the target (“a FMCW type radar apparatus” [0002]), comprising:
a frequency analysis unit configured to perform a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (“ the microcomputer 10 includes a digital signal processor or the like for executing the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) “ [0065]) on a beat signal that is a frequency difference signal between transmission and reception signals of the radar waves (“A beat signal generating means is provided for generating beat signals each corresponding to a frequency difference between the transmission signal and each of the received signals generated from the plurality of receiving means.” [0019]);
a peak information acquisition unit configured to extract, from peaks of a power spectrum calculated by the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform in the frequency analysis unit (“A converting means is provided for extracting a peak frequency of at least one beat signal “ [0019] & “ frequency analysis processing (i.e., distance FFT and azimuth FFT)” [0070]), peaks within a predefined distance-velocity region preset as a raindrop condition (“The peak frequency of the beat signal derived from the reflected wave returning from a close range road surface or raindrops tends to appear in the low-frequency region, because the distance to the close range road surface or raindrops is short.” [0027]), and acquire a plurality of rainfall determination parameters (“ The peak frequency of the beat signal derived from the reflected wave returning from a close range road surface or raindrops tends to appear in the low-frequency region” [0027]) as peak information that is information about the extracted peaks (“Each extracted frequency is specified as peak frequency” [0075]); and a rainfall determination unit configured to determine whether a surrounding environment of the vehicle has rainfall, based on the plurality of rainfall determination parameters acquired by the peak information acquisition unit (“judging means is provided for identifying the objective with a close range road surface or raindrops “[0019]) and to determine that the surrounding environment of the vehicle has rainfall when the plurality of the rainfall determination parameters exceed their respective predefined thresholds (“Therefore, the judging means executes the judging processing only when the peak frequency of the beat signal is generated in the predetermined low-frequency region. In other words, the comparison judging processing is effectively executed only when it is necessary.” [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, KUMON discloses
The radar device according to claim 1, wherein the peak information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as one of the plurality of rainfall determination parameters, power of the extracted peaks (FIG.5A), and the rainfall determination unit is configured to, when the power of the extracted peaks exceeds a predefined threshold, determine that there is rainfall (“the peak frequency appearing in the low-frequency region has large peak intensity when it is raining” [0016] & Fig.2, Step.S150)
Regarding claim 4, KUMON discloses
The radar device according to claim 1, wherein the peak information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as one of the plurality of rainfall determination parameters, velocity variability of the extracted peaks (“ detecting processing for detecting the distance, relative speed, and azimuth “ [0067]), and the rainfall determination unit is configured to, when the velocity variability of the extracted peaks exceeds a predefined threshold, determine that there is rainfall (“the Doppler shift amount relative to a close range road surface or raindrops changes in accordance with the vehicle traveling speed. Accordingly, the peak frequency of the beat signal varies“ [0028])
Regarding claim 5, KUMON discloses
The radar device according to claim 1, wherein
the peak information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as one of the plurality of rainfall determination parameters, height variability of the extracted peaks (FIG.5A, Parts.fbu3 & fbd3), and the rainfall determination unit is configured to, when the height variability of the extracted peaks exceeds a predefined threshold, determine that there is rainfall (“when the intensity of phase peak frequency f[theta]u is equal to or smaller than the intensity of ascending section peak frequency fbu3 and the intensity of phase peak frequency f[theta]d is equal to or smaller than the intensity of descending section peak frequency fbd3, the reflected wave is judged as having arrived from a close range road surface or raindrops” [0095])
Regarding claim 6, KUMON discloses
The radar device according to claim 1, wherein the peak information acquisition unit is configured to, when extracting peaks within the predefined distance-velocity region, exclude peaks whose relative velocities are substantially equal to a relative velocity of a road surface (“It is desirable to change the above predetermined low-frequency region in accordance with the traveling speed of a vehicle” [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, KUMON discloses
A radar device for a vehicle (“vehicle radar apparatus” [0001]), configured to transmit radar waves modulated in frequency according to a FCM modulation scheme and detect a target by receiving radar waves reflected by the target (“a FMCW type radar apparatus” [0002]), comprising: a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs (“he microcomputer 10 includes a digital signal processor or the like for executing the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) “[0065]); and
a processor executing the one or more computer programs to (“microcomputer” [0037]):
perform a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform on a beat signal that is a frequency difference signal between transmission and reception signals of the radar waves (“(i.e., distance FFT and azimuth FFT)” [0070]); extract, from peaks of a power spectrum calculated by the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform(“A converting means is provided for extracting a peak frequency of at least one beat signal “ [0019]), peaks within a predefined distance-velocity region preset as a raindrop condition, and acquire a plurality of rainfall determination parameters (“ The peak frequency of the beat signal derived from the reflected wave returning from a close range road surface or raindrops tends to appear in the low-frequency region” [0027]) as peak information that is information about the extracted peaks (“The peak frequency of the beat signal derived from the reflected wave returning from a close range road surface or raindrops tends to appear in the low-frequency region, because the distance to the close range road surface or raindrops is short.” [0027]); and determine whether a surrounding environment of the vehicle has rainfall, based on the acquired plurality of rainfall determination parameters (“ judging means is provided for identifying the objective with a close range road surface or raindrops “ [0019]) determine that the surrounding environment of the vehicle has rainfall when the plurality of the rainfall determination parameters exceed their respective predefined thresholds (“Therefore, the judging means executes the judging processing only when the peak frequency of the beat signal is generated in the predetermined low-frequency region. In other words, the comparison judging processing is effectively executed only when it is necessary.” [0027]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMON(US20040183713A1) in view of SAKAMOTO(US20170102459A1)
Regarding claim 2, KUMON discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kumon does not appear to explicitly disclose counting peak number. SAKAMOTO teaches in the same field of endeavor of FMCW rain detection. SAKAMOTO discloses wherein, the peak information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as one of the plurality of rainfall determination parameters, a number of the extracted peaks (“the targeting unit sets a number of peaks “ [0008]), and the rainfall determination unit is configured to, when the number of the extracted peaks exceeds a predefined threshold, determine that there is rainfall (“The rainy-weather determining unit determines that weather is rainy when the number of erroneous detections is greater than a predetermined rainy-weather determination threshold” [0008])
SAKAMOTO teaches in the same field of endeavor of FMCW rain detection. 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 KUMON with the teachings of SAKAMOTO to incorporate the features of using peak count to identify rain so as to gain the advantage of improving clutter identification [0010, SAKAMOTO]. 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMON(US20040183713A1) in view of Sugawara(US6140954A)
Regarding claim 7, KUMON discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kumon does not appear to explicitly disclose detecting roadside objects. Sugawara teaches in the same field of endeavor of FMCW beat signal processing. Sugawara discloses wherein, the peak information acquisition unit is configured to, when extracting peaks within the predefined distance-velocity region, exclude peaks (“ FIGS. 2A, 2B and 2C show an example of peak spectrum data obtained when there is a roadside object “ [Col.6, ll.63-64])within a region in which there assumed to be a roadside object in a lateral direction of the vehicle (“ thus it is possible for received signals relating to traveling vehicles to be processed efficiently by roadside objects being excluded as objects of detection” [Col.3, ll.23-26]).
Sugawara teaches in the same field of endeavor of FMCW beat signal processing. 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 KUMON with the teachings of Sugawara to incorporate the features of removing roadside objects from peak processing so as to gain the advantage of improving processing efficiency [Col.3, Par.3, Sugawara]. 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.
Heilmann(US20120032838A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0011] “The power of this rain clutter is thus a measure of the presence and strength of precipitation.”
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