DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on February 6, 2024 Claims 1-23 havebeen examined in this application.
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 .
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jansen et al (US 2016/0124086 A1) has a method for determining the velocity of an object using radar system having a processor.
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