DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The response filed May 7, 2026 has been entered.
No claims are amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending this application
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mende et al (US20030179128A1) in view of Rao et al (US 2020/0209352 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mende teaches a Doppler velocity estimation method using a single chirp signal, comprising [0013 stepwise frequency shift during a measuring interval, 0036 for chirp duration and 0040 for single chirp]:
performing a radar signal processing step, wherein the radar signal processing step comprises: configuring a radar device to receive the single chirp signal that represents a radar return received from an object around the radar device [0001-0004 for signal reflections from an object];
configuring a computing device to divide the single chirp signal into a plurality of subsignals having a plurality of time intervals [0006 for two signal sections (subsignal) at difference frequencies, 0018, and 0032];
configuring the computing device to estimate a first phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals when the object has a first velocity and estimate a second phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals with the first velocity as reference when the object has a second velocity [0001 for phase difference, with 0016-0018 for phase A and phase B measurements for speed measurements];
and configuring the computing device to estimate a first estimated velocity according to a derived from the second phase difference [0016-0017 for using phase difference for speed, and 0034].
Mende fails to explicitly teach a slope derived from phase difference.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches a slope derived from phase difference [0023 for phase change is directly proportional (slope) to the velocity of the object].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to estimation of φd using a Fourier transform across subsequent chirps (Rao, 0023).
Regarding Claim 10, Mende teaches a Doppler velocity estimation system using a single chirp signal, comprising [0013 stepwise frequency shift during a measuring interval, 0036 for chirp duration and 0040 for single chirp]:
a radar device configured to receive the single chirp signal that represents a radar return received from an object around the radar device [0001-0004 for signal reflections from an object];
and a processor signally connected to the memory and configured to perform a Doppler velocity estimation method [0005];
wherein the Doppler velocity estimation method comprises: performing a radar signal processing step, wherein the radar signal processing step comprises [0006 for two signal sections (subsignal) at difference frequencies, 0018, and 0032]:
dividing the single chirp signal into a plurality of subsignals having a plurality of time intervals; estimating a first phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals when the object has a first velocity and estimating a second phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals with the first velocity as reference when the object has a second velocity [0001 for phase difference, with 0016-0018 for phase A and phase B measurements for speed measurements];
and estimating a first estimated velocity according to a slope derived from the second phase difference [0016-0017 for using phase difference for speed, and 0034].
Mende fails to explicitly teach and a computing device signally connected to the radar device and comprising: a memory storing a Doppler velocity of range-Doppler Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), wherein the Doppler velocity has a number of flip; a slope derived from phase difference.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches and a computing device signally connected to the radar device and comprising: a memory storing a Doppler velocity of range-Doppler Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), wherein the Doppler velocity has a number of flip [0036, and 0048-0052 for using absolute value, and value over max triggers a correction, 0057-0058];
a slope derived from phase difference [0023 for phase change is directly proportional (slope) to the velocity of the object].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to estimation of φd using a Fourier transform across subsequent chirps (Rao, 0023).
Regarding Claim 19, Mende teaches a non-transitory storage medium having instructions therein, when executed, causing a processor to perform a Doppler velocity estimation method using a single chirp signal, and the Doppler velocity estimation method comprising [0013 stepwise frequency shift during a measuring interval, 0036 for chirp duration and 0040 for single chirp]:
performing a radar signal processing step, wherein the radar signal processing step comprises [0006 for two signal sections (subsignal) at difference frequencies, 0018, and 0032]:
dividing the single chirp signal into a plurality of subsignals having a plurality of time intervals, wherein the single chirp signal represents a radar return received from an object around a radar device [0001 for phase difference, with 0016-0018 for phase A and phase B measurements for speed measurements];
estimating a first phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals when the object has a first velocity and estimating a second phase difference between consecutive two of the subsignals with the first velocity as reference when the object has a second velocity [0001 for phase difference, with 0016-0018 for phase A and phase B measurements for speed measurements];
and estimating a first estimated velocity according to a derived from the second phase difference [0016-0017 for using phase difference for speed, and 0034].
Mende fails to explicitly teach a slope derived from phase difference.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches a slope derived from phase difference [0023 for phase change is directly proportional (slope) to the velocity of the object].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to estimation of φd using a Fourier transform across subsequent chirps (Rao, 0023).
Regarding Claim 4, 13, and 21, Jansen fails to explicitly teach the single chirp signal has a ramp end time and a sampling number, the time intervals of the subsignals have a same length and different starting times, the first phase difference is positively correlated with the first estimated velocity and the ramp end time, and the first phase difference is negatively correlated with the sampling number.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches the single chirp signal has a ramp end time and a sampling number [0021-0023],
the time intervals of the subsignals have a same length and different starting times, the first phase difference is positively correlated with the first estimated velocity and the ramp end time [0023 for peaks of range FFT],
and the first phase difference is negatively correlated with the sampling number [0022-0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to estimation of φd using a Fourier transform across subsequent chirps (Rao, 0023).
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Mende fails to explicitly teach in the flip number estimating step, the number of flip of the Doppler velocity of range-Doppler FFT is estimated by the computing device according to the first estimated velocity and a maximum unambiguous velocity; wherein the maximum unambiguous velocity is defined by a wavelength and a chirp period of the single chirp signal.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches in the flip number estimating step, the number of flip of the Doppler velocity of range-Doppler FFT is estimated by the computing device according to the first estimated velocity and a maximum unambiguous velocity [0048-0052 for using absolute value, and value over max triggers a correction, 0058];
wherein the maximum unambiguous velocity is defined by a wavelength and a chirp period of the single chirp signal [0024-0027 where Vmax is a function of wavelength and chirp period, 0096, 0103].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to estimation of φd using a Fourier transform across subsequent chirps (Rao, 0023).
Regarding Claim 6, 15, and 22, Mende fails to explicitly teach in the flip number estimating step, the first estimated velocity is represented as vc and greater than or equal to 0, the maximum unambiguous velocity is represented as vmax, the Doppler velocity is represented as vd, and the number of flip is represented as N and described as follows: in response to determining that vc< vmax and
PNG
media_image1.png
31
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 0; in response to determining that vc< vmax and
PNG
media_image2.png
31
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 1; and in response to determining that vc> vmax, the number of flip is described as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
235
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; wherein fix represents taking integer.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches in the flip number estimating step [0026-0027 and equation 3 for phase between -p and p, with phase imposing limit on max velocity that can be unambiguously estimated],
the first estimated velocity is represented as vc and greater than or equal to 0, the maximum unambiguous velocity is represented as vmax, the Doppler velocity is represented as vd, and the number of flip is represented as N and described as follows [0025 equation 2 for estimating object velocity, and 0036]:
in response to determining that vc< vmax and
PNG
media_image1.png
31
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 0; in response to determining that vc< vmax and
PNG
media_image2.png
31
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 1 [0048-0049 or v exceeding v max and Doppler correction, with 0057 for flagging velocity excursion];
and in response to determining that vc> vmax, the number of flip is described as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
235
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0057-0058 and equation 8];
wherein fix represents taking integer [0052 and 0090].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to compute true velocity (Rao, 0057).
Regarding Claim 7, and 16, Mende fails to explicitly teach in the velocity estimating step, the second estimated velocity is represented as vest and described as follows: vest = vd + 2Nvmax.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches in the velocity estimating step, the second estimated velocity is represented as vest and described as follows: vest = vd + 2Nvmax [0052-0057 and equation 8, 0096, 0103].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose determine if V has exceeded maximum velocity (Rao, 0052).
Regarding Claim 8, 17, and 23, Mende fails to explicitly teach in the flip number estimating step, the first estimated velocity is represented as vc and smaller than 0, the maximum unambiguous velocity is represented as vmax, the Doppler velocity is represented as vd, and the number of flip is represented as N and described as follows: in response to determining that vc> -vmax and
PNG
media_image4.png
30
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 0; in response to determining that vc> -vmax and
PNG
media_image5.png
31
175
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 1; and in response to determining that vc< -vmax, the number of flip is described as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
51
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; wherein fix represents taking integer.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches explicitly teach in the flip number estimating step [0026-0027 and equation 3 for phase between -p and p, with phase imposing limit on max velocity that can be unambiguously estimated],
the first estimated velocity is represented as vc and smaller than 0, the maximum unambiguous velocity is represented as vmax, the Doppler velocity is represented as vd, and the number of flip is represented as N and described as follows [0025 equation 2 for estimating object velocity, and 0036]:
in response to determining that vc> -vmax and
PNG
media_image4.png
30
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 0 [0048-0049 or v exceeding v max and Doppler correction, with 0057 for flagging velocity excursion];
in response to determining that vc> -vmax and
PNG
media_image5.png
31
175
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, the number of flip is equal to 1; and in response to determining that vc< -vmax, the number of flip is described as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
51
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0057-0058 and equation 8];
wherein fix represents taking integer [0052, 0090].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the slope calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose to compute true velocity (Rao, 0057).
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Mende fails to explicitly teach in the velocity estimating step, the second estimated velocity is represented as vest and described as follows: vest = vd - 2Nvmax.
Rao has a method determines if a velocity of an object detected by a radar is greater than a maximum velocity by receiving on a plurality of receivers (abstract) and teaches in the velocity estimating step, the second estimated velocity is represented as vest and described as follows: vest = vd - 2Nvmax [0052-0057 and equation 8, 0096, 0103].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Rao for the purpose determine if V has exceeded maximum velocity (Rao, 0052).
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mende et al (US20030179128A1) in view of Rao et al (US 2020/0209352 A1), as applied to Claim 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Villeval et al (US 2019/0346551 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, 11, and 20, Mende teaches performing a flip number estimating step to configure the computing device to estimate a number of flip of a Doppler velocity of range-Doppler Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) according to the first estimated velocity [0016-0018 for using Fourier transform];
and performing a velocity estimating step to configure the computing device to estimate a second estimated velocity according to the Doppler velocity of range-Doppler FFT, the first estimated velocity and the number of flip [0016-0017 for ambiguity resolution of Doppler speed, 0033, 0039].
Mende fails to explicitly teach wherein the second estimated velocity is configured to control a vehicle.
Vileval has a vehicle, system for navigating the vehicle and method of operating the vehicle and teaches wherein the second estimated velocity is configured to control a vehicle [0019].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Villeval for the purpose to steering the vehicle to avoid the object (Villeval, 0019).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12, Mende teaches the radar device and the computing device are disposed on the vehicle, and the Doppler velocity estimation method further comprises [0016-0018 for using Fourier transform]:
wherein the radar device comprises a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar [0015].
Mende fails to explicitly teach controlling motion of the vehicle by a steering system, a propulsion system or a braking system according to the second estimated velocity.
Vileval has a vehicle, system for navigating the vehicle and method of operating the vehicle and teaches controlling motion of the vehicle by a steering system, a propulsion system or a braking system according to the second estimated velocity [0019].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the Doppler velocity techniques, as disclosed by Mende, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Villeval for the purpose to steering the vehicle to avoid the object (Villeval, 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 18, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Mende and Rao do not teach using a single-chirp signal and dividing the single chirp signal into a plurality of sub-signals. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Mende teaches the signal sections used according to the invention are substantially shorter and one sample is detected in each signal section effectively dividing a single sweep of the modulation range into a plurality of shorter sub-signal at different time interval [Mende, 0018].
In applicant’s arguments page 20 first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Mende teaches tow signal sections and two echo signals, that are different from the applicant’s dividing a single chirp. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Mende teaches waveform according to the invention can be used in a simple way to determine distance and relative speed during a single chirp [Mende, 0040] confirming the interleaved signal sections A and B together constitute one single chirp sweep over the modulation range fSweep [Mende, 0032].
In applicant’s arguments page 21, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Mende’s received echo signals represent two different chirps. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Mende teaches the two signal sections with different frequencies are subjected in steps to frequency modulation over the finite modulation range [Mende, 0015] as a single unified sweep, Mende also teaches a single chirp [Mende, 0040].
In applicant’s arguments page 22, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Mende’s A and B sections are transmitted alternately in time. The examiner respectfully disagrees: the applicant is not claiming how the sub-signals are transmitted, and Mende explicitly teaches a single chirp [Mende, 0040] therefore the alternating time divisions of sections A and B is the diving of one chirp into time interval sub-signals [Mende, 0032].
In applicant’s arguments page 22, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Mende’s received echo signals are used to calculate phase difference. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Mende teaches measured phases ψA and ψB of the two complex spectral peaks [Mende, 0016-0017] thereby deriving velocity from what Mende calls a single chirp [Mende, 0040].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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 use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 Kelleher can be reached on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights