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 .
Examiner’s Note
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01 June, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objections regarding claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19 have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claims.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claims.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 01 June, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. However, the Examiner would like to note the following arguments:
Applicant’s argument:
“Hill describes that "a mainlobe target is assumed to be detected only when detection is present in the main channel and absent in the guard channel, or when detection is present in both channels and VR is true." In other words, Hill also describes two scenarios: (i) detection when detection is only present in 1 channel; and (ii) detection when detection is present in two channels and the VR comparator is true. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites a determination based on "selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target." In the first scenario of Hill, no selecting of channels based on amplitudes associated with a target occurs because "detection is ... absent in the guard channel." Therefore, there is only a single amplitude associated with a target and a channel cannot be selected. In the second scenario, selection is based on whether VR is true, not based on an amplitude having an amplitude larger than another amplitude as recited by amended claim 1. In other words, Hill does not teach or suggest these features of amended claim 1 because in neither scenario of Hill is a comparison being made between the amplitude of channels "involved in detecting the target." Instead, Hill describes determining whether "detection is present" in a single channel or whether "VR is true."
An NPL reference titled "Moving target parameter estimation and SFN ghost rejection in multistatic passive radar" ("Zhang"), which is cited with respect to independent claims 10 and 19, does not remedy the deficiencies of Hill. Independent claims 10 and 19 are allowable for at least similar reasons as independent claim 1. Dependent claims 3 and 18 depend from independent claims 1 and 10 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as the respective independent claim. The cited references, alone or in combination, do not remedy the deficiencies of Liu with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 19. The remaining claims depend from one of claims 1 and 10 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as the respective independent claim.”
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that selection is based on whether VR is true, not based on an amplitude having an amplitude larger than another amplitude as recited by amended claim 1 […] in neither scenario of Hill is a comparison being made between the amplitude of channels "involved in detecting the target.", the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the feature(s) of amended claim 1 is rejected over the combination of references Liu and Hill. Liu discloses substantially all of the recited limitation(s) in claim 1, except for “wherein: the determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target; […] and causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target.” Secondary reference Hill teaches that the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60]. Hill teaches representing detection of targets as a function of target strength [col. 5, lines 35-36]. More specifically, Hill teaches that the upper limit of K, or the ratio threshold, is clearly the ratio of the mainlobe gain, GML to the guard antenna gain GG. For explanatory purposes, let the upper limit be assumed to be 30. The lower limit of K is the ratio of GSL to GG which is assumed to be ½. Thus, K must lie between 30 and ½ […] Let it be assumed that K = 15, that the noise level in both channels is 1 unit, and that the main channel threshold is 4. Let it further be assumed that a strong ML target is detected so that am ≈ 90 units. Therefore, aG ≈ 3, since 90/3 = 30 is greater than K = 15, and am = 90 is greater than TM = 4, the strong target will be detected. However, let us assume a weak ML target so that am = 6. Consequently, the radar returns received by the guard antenna is 6/30 = 0.2. However, since it is below the noise level of 1 in the guard channel, the ratio of aM/aG is not 6/0.2 = 30, but rather 6/1 = 6. Since this ratio is less than K = 15, this weak target will not be detected [col. 6, lines 8-32]. Therefore, Hill teaches “wherein: the determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target”. The newly amended limitation “causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target” is taught by newly cited reference Hori (see detailed rejection below). Therefore, Liu in view of Hill and Hori disclose all limitations as recited in amended claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the NPL reference titled "Moving target parameter estimation and SFN ghost rejection in multistatic passive radar" ("Zhang"), which is cited with respect to independent claims 10 and 19, does not remedy the deficiencies of Hill, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the recited feature(s) of claim 10 and 19 are rejected over the combination of references Liu and Hill and Hori and Zhang. Liu discloses substantially all of the recited limitation(s) in claim(s) 10 and 19, except for “by selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than a channel amplitude associated with the target in another channel, wherein the amplitudes are associated with the detected target; […] and otherwise classifying the target as a false target, and causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target”. Secondary reference Hill teaches the limitation “wherein: the determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target” as explained in Examiner’s response above. Zhang teaches the limitation “and otherwise classifying the target as a false target” as detailed in rejection below. The newly amended limitation “causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target” is taught by newly cited reference Hori (see detailed rejection below). Therefore, Liu in view of Hill and Hori disclose all limitations as recited in amended claims 10 and 19.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0025405 A1 previously cited “LIU”), in view of Hill et al. (US 3,875,569 A previously cited “HILL”), and further in view of Hori et al. (US 2021/0327274 A1 newly cited “HORI”).
Regarding claim 1, LIU discloses (Examiner’s note: What LIU does not disclose is ) a method for classifying a radar target detected by an automotive radar having a plurality of channels (sample data for returns received at each of a quantity K channels, i.e., K antenna elements, are received for processing by processing circuitry [0045 & FIG. 7]), the method comprising: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target, each channel includes N samples. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]); (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]); Examiner’s note: “A channel is considered to be involved in detecting the target if the signal amplitude is sufficiently large and contributes to the overall amplitude associated with the particular target” [para. 0043]. Examiner’s note: LIU does not explicitly disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target; however, claim 1 recites a method for classifying a radar target and limitation “classifying the target as a true target in response to the number of channels being above a number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “classifying the target as a true target”) if a first condition (i.e. “in response to the number of channels being above a number threshold”) happens; and step B (i.e. “classifying the target as a false target”) if a second condition (i.e. “otherwise”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HILL teaches that in FIG. 3a the guard channel output aG is shown supplied directly to comparator 44a and the main channel output aM is shown attenuated by a factor K in an attenuator 41b whose output is aM/K. Thus, the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HILL, because doing so would improve probability of detection in the antenna mainlobe with increased SNR, as recognized by HILL. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and HILL, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, target detection in radar system.
LIU, as modified by HILL, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HORI teaches that the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance of the own vehicle 50 for danger avoidance of the own vehicle 50 from a target object and excludes, from the target object, an approaching object determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40. Even in the case where an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22, when the approaching object 55 is determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 does not hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 does not perform driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. When an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22 and the approaching object 55 is determined not to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 may hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. For example, a control command to emit an alarm sound is outputted to the alarm device 30 [0063].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HORI, because doing so would improve accuracy and safety of the automotive vehicle system, as recognized by HILL. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and HORI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, target detection in radar system.
Regarding claim 3, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target (at 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [LIU 0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 10 (system 10A includes one or more radar modules 12A, which process radar transmit and receive signals which are compatible with the radar detection and monitoring system 10A in the host automobile [LIU 0024]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and further in view of Samukawa et al. (US 2005/0128133 A1 previously cited “SAMUKAWA”).
Regarding claim 2, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising classifying the target as the true target in response to the number of channels being above the number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAMUKAWA teaches that when the detection time in pending status becomes at least 0.4 second or above (the target is detected for four successive cycles at a rate of 0.1 second per cycle, for example), the target is in sensed status [0075].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of SAMUKAWA, because doing so would enable the vehicle system to judge with accuracy a state in which the vehicle of interest is approaching the vehicle ahead [0076], as recognized by SAMUKAWA. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and SAMUKAWA, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in a radar system.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and further in view of Pontisakos et al. (US 2021/0101588 A1 previously cited “PONTISAKOS”).
Regarding claim 5, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and PONTISAKOS, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in radar automotive system.
Regarding claim 6, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and in view of Zhang et al. ("Moving target parameter estimation and SFN ghost rejection in multistatic passive radar," 2013 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarCon13), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ RADAR.2013.6586086. previously cited “ZHANG”).
Regarding claim 7, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24]. The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is seventy percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only seven channels are recognized.
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and ZHANG, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in a radar system.
Regarding claim 8, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24]. The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is thirty percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only three channels are recognized.
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Regarding claim 10, LIU discloses an apparatus for classifying a radar target detected by an automotive radar (an automotive detection system 10A, such as an automotive radar system [0024]) having a plurality of channels (sample data for returns received at each of a quantity K channels, i.e., K antenna elements, are received for processing by processing circuitry [0045 & FIG. 7]), the apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (a processor 36B, which can include such circuitry as a digital signal processor (DSP), associated memory [0027]), wherein the instructions include: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target each channel includes N samples. Frequency transformation processing, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]); (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HILL teaches that in FIG. 3a the guard channel output aG is shown supplied directly to comparator 44a and the main channel output aM is shown attenuated by a factor K in an attenuator 41b whose output is aM/K. Thus, the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HILL, because doing so would improve probability of detection in the antenna mainlobe with increased SNR, as recognized by HILL.
LIU, as modified by HILL, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target; and causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HORI teaches that the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance of the own vehicle 50 for danger avoidance of the own vehicle 50 from a target object and excludes, from the target object, an approaching object determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40. Even in the case where an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22, when the approaching object 55 is determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 does not hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 does not perform driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. When an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22 and the approaching object 55 is determined not to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 may hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. For example, a control command to emit an alarm sound is outputted to the alarm device 30 [0063].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HORI, because doing so would improve accuracy and safety of the automotive vehicle system, as recognized by HILL.
It is further noted that LIU discloses that if the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated [0045]. However, LIU, as modified by HILL and HORI, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Regarding claim 12, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the instructions include selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target (at 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [LIU 0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the number threshold is seventy percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels (because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [ZHANG pg. 4, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is seventy percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only seven channels are recognized.
Regarding claim 17, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the number threshold is thirty percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels (because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [ZHANG pg. 4, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is thirty percent of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only three channels are recognized.
Regarding claim 19, LIU discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (a processor 36B, which can include such circuitry as a digital signal processor (DSP), associated memory [0027]) including: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting a target detected by an automotive radar (an automotive detection system 10A, such as an automotive radar system [0024]) having a plurality of channels (each channel includes N samples. Frequency transformation processing, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]), that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HILL teaches that in FIG. 3a the guard channel output aG is shown supplied directly to comparator 44a and the main channel output aM is shown attenuated by a factor K in an attenuator 41b whose output is aM/K. Thus, the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HILL, because doing so would improve probability of detection in the antenna mainlobe with increased SNR, as recognized by HILL.
LIU, as modified by HILL, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target; and causing an action in an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) based on the classification of the target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HORI teaches that the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance of the own vehicle 50 for danger avoidance of the own vehicle 50 from a target object and excludes, from the target object, an approaching object determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40. Even in the case where an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22, when the approaching object 55 is determined to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 does not hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 does not perform driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. When an approaching object 55 is detected by the object detection unit 22 and the approaching object 55 is determined not to be a ghost target by the ghost determination unit 40, the approaching object 55 may hinder traveling safety of the own vehicle 50. Thus, the assistance determination unit 23 performs driving assistance such as notification, avoidance of a collision, or reduction in damage for the approaching object 55. For example, a control command to emit an alarm sound is outputted to the alarm device 30 [0063].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of HORI, because doing so would improve accuracy and safety of the automotive vehicle system, as recognized by HILL.
It is further noted that LIU discloses that if the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated [0045]. However, LIU, as modified by HILL and HORI, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and further in view of Nink et al. (US 2010/0052986 A1 previously cited “NINK”).
Regarding claim 9, LIU/ HILL/ HORI discloses the method of claim 1 Examiner’s note: The Examiner noted that the Applicant’s disclosure recites that “The radar 1 shown in the examples of FIGS. 1 and 2 is a large aperture radar, i.e. the antennas are spaced apart 10 wavelengths or more” [para. 0041].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, NINK teaches that the term antenna aperture refers to a single antenna element (such as a large reflector antennas) [0026]. Multiple antennas at locations that are widely separated (for example, where apertures are separated by hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of wavelengths) [0027].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of NINK, because doing so would maximize a signal to noise ratio, thereby improving reliability of the system [0010], as recognized by NINK. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and NINK, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, target detection using radar.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and ZHANG, and further in view of SAMUKAWA.
Regarding claim 11, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the instructions include classifying the target as the true target in response to the number of channels being above the number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [LIU 0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAMUKAWA teaches that when the detection time in pending status becomes at least 0.4 second or above (the target is detected for four successive cycles at a rate of 0.1 second per cycle, for example), the target is in sensed status [0075].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of SAMUKAWA, because doing so would enable the vehicle system to judge with accuracy a state in which the vehicle of interest is approaching the vehicle ahead [0076], as recognized by SAMUKAWA.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of HILL, and HORI, and ZHANG, and further in view of PONTISAKOS.
Regarding claim 14, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Regarding claim 15, LIU/ HILL/ HORI/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 system of LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lesi et al. (US 2021/0318414 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of determining a potential ghost target from the received velocities and confirming the potential ghost target based on estimated ranges and perturbations of the vehicle speed.
Bialer at al. (US 2018/0128912 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of radars with wide array aperture and widely spaced elements, such as spacing larger than half a wavelength is utilized.
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 HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 August 6, 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights