DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of DE102022208465.9 filed 8/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/9/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Regarding independent claim 1, the applicant argues that Doerry describes techniques for correcting distortions that arise from movement of the radar platform itself, rather than movement of a target object. The reference is addressing distortions introduced by the airborne radar's own changing location and viewing angles. Nothing in these portions of Doerry discloses determining movement of a target object for the purpose of generating correction information, as required by claim 1.
Response 1: The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 45 of the current application describes “the movement can be determined, for example, by determining a speed, an acceleration or a movement trajectory of the target object in the target region…a radial speed relative to the radar sensor can be determined…the movement of the target object can relate to a change in location of the target object within a measurement period of the radar signal…the movement of the target object can be a movement relative to the above reference system for a movement of the radar sensor…the movement of the target object may comprise radial speed relative to the radar sensor.” The claim language is broad, and as shown above, the specification of the instant application describes that the target movement can be a relative movement with respect to the radar sensor. The specification of the instant application describes that the movement of the target object can be a movement relative to the above reference system for a movement of the radar sensor, the movement of the target object may comprise radial speed relative to the radar sensor. Therefore, Doerry discloses determining movement of a target object for the purpose of generating correction information.
Argument 2: Claim 1 further requires "reducing an influence of the movement of the target object on the radar signal based on the correction information to obtain a corrected radar signal." Doerry describes that its correction removes the influence of radar-platform motion, not target motion. Doerry does not disclose reducing the influence of target-object movement based on target-motion-derived correction information, as recited in claim 1.
Response 2: The examiner disagrees. The claim language is broad and the specification mentions that the claim language is broad, and as shown above, the specification of the instant application describes that the target movement can be a relative movement with respect to the radar sensor. The specification of the instant application describes that the movement of the target object can be a movement relative to the above reference system for a movement of the radar sensor, the movement of the target object may comprise radial speed relative to the radar sensor (paragraph 45). Doerry (‘526) is method of compensating for defocusing of range-Doppler map in a GMTI radar video signal caused by movement of radar during a coherent processing interval over which a set of radar pulses are processed, comprising varying waveform or sampling parameters of each pulse on a pulse-to-pulse basis to compensate for distortions caused by variations in viewing angles from the radar to the target. Therefore, Doerry discloses reducing the influence of target-object movement based on target-motion-derived correction information
Argument 3: Doerry's does not describe forming or determining any synthetic aperture based on corrected radar data. It merely acknowledges that SAR platforms use similar controller hardware. Doerry does not disclose a method for correcting a radar signal "to determine a synthetic aperture."
Response 3: The examiner disagrees. The claim recites "to determine a synthetic aperture” in the preamble of the claim, which is the intended purpose. Paragraph 14 of the specification describes “the method further includes creating the synthetic aperture
based on the corrected radar signal. With the help of the corrected radar signal, the method can facilitate the construction of the synthetic aperture since dynamic objects in the target region can remain unconsidered.” Claim 15 of the specification describes “creating the synthetic aperture may include constructing an image of the target region based on the corrected radar signal.” Paragraph 26 of the specification describes “a device is disclosed for correcting a radar signal for determining a synthetic aperture. The device may include an interface circuit configured to receive data indicative of the radar signal. The radar signal may be configured with a sequence of echoes from a target region and is based on a sequence of transmission pulses. The device also may include a processing circuit that is designed to determine a movement of at least one target object in the target region, to determine correction information for the radar signal based on the movement of the target object, and to reduce an influence of the movement of the target object on the radar signal based on the correction information to obtain a corrected radar signal. The device can compensate for signal distortions in the radar signal due to dynamic objects in the target region and thus make it possible to generate a virtually static image of the target region. The device can support imaging reconstruction of the target region by reducing defocus and misprojection of dynamic parts of the target region.” Paragraph 102 of the specification describes Fig. 7 shows an example of a vehicle 700 that includes a device 710 according to the present disclosure for correcting a radar signal 720 for determining a synthetic aperture 730. The device 710 comprises an interface circuit that is designed to receive data indicative of the radar signal 720. The radar signal 720 has a sequence of echoes from a target region 740 and is based on a sequence of transmission pulses.”
Doerry (‘526) describes compensating for defocusing of range-Doppler map in a GMTI video signal caused by movement of radar during a coherent processing interval over which a set of radar pulses are processed. Waveform or sampling parameters of each pulse are varied to compensate for distortions caused by changes in viewing angles from the radar to the target (column 3 lines 1-7). Doerry (‘526) describes the Radar Processor collects this data and performs GMTI processing in a conventional manner, but upon data with improved quality…the position measuring, antenna pointing, and radar controllers are conventional elements of precision synthetic aperture radars (column 8 lines 60-65). Doerry (‘526) describes “As taught by this invention, the effects in the data of variations in velocity due to the radar's changing positions can be compensated by adjusting radar waveform parameters (including frequency) in a complementary fashion to `stabilize` radar signal phase-shifts. This compensation is called "range stabilization" hereinafter (column 4 lines 1-4). Doerry (‘526) describes there are many modifications possible with this invention, as long as the concept of varying waveform or sampling parameters of each GMTI pulse to compensate for distortions caused by variations in viewing angles from the radar to the target is followed (column 11 lines 32-36). It is well known to one skilled in the art that creating a synthetic aperture involves using signal processing to combine radar data collected from a moving platform over time, simulating a much larger physical antenna to achieve high-resolution images, effectively overcoming the size limitations of real antennas in space. This is done by sequentially transmitting pulses and recording the echoes, using the platform's motion to build up a "virtual" antenna array that provides detailed information about targets. Doerry (‘526) is method of compensating for defocusing of range-Doppler map in a GMTI radar video signal caused by movement of radar during a coherent processing interval over which a set of radar pulses are processed, comprising varying waveform or sampling parameters of each pulse on a pulse-to-pulse basis to compensate for distortions caused by variations in viewing angles from the radar to the target, therefore satisfying the limitation a method for correcting a radar signal "to determine a synthetic aperture."
Addition of new claim 13 overcomes claim objection.
Amendment to claim 16 overcomes corresponding 112(b) rejection.
Amendment to claim 20 overcomes 101rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 14: an interface circuit configured to receive data
Claim 14: a processing circuit configured to
A specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function.
The following have been identified as the structure for the communication module and the converting unit:
¶[0083] of the published specification and Figure 6 discloses the device 600 which comprises interface circuit 610. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the interface circuit.
¶[0084] of the published specification and Figure 6 discloses the device 600 which comprises processing circuit 620. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the processing circuit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doerry (US 6,765,526 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates “a method for correcting a radar signal to determine a synthetic aperture (column 8 lines 60-65: the Radar Processor collects this data and performs GMTI processing in a conventional manner, but upon data with improved quality…the position measuring, antenna pointing, and radar controllers are conventional elements of precision synthetic aperture radars), comprising:
receiving data indicative of the radar signal, the radar signal having a sequence of echoes from a target region and being based on a sequence of transmission pulses (column 3 lines 39-46: GMTI systems relate Doppler frequency to the relative velocity between a radar and a moving target…GMTI systems typically measure Doppler by emitting and collecting data from a sequence of pulses at a pulse-repetition frequency (PRF), and by measuring the pulse-to-pulse phase shift in the target returns…while Doppler also manifests itself in other ways, a pulse-to-pulse phase shift is nevertheless the principal effect measured by typical GMTI systems);
determining movement of at least one target object in the target region (column 2 lines 61-65: adjust some combination of transmitted waveform parameters and digital sampling parameters as a function of the instantaneous geometry of the data collection to focus the range-Doppler map of a GMTI radar; Figure 2: monostatic GMTI geometry);
determining correction information of the radar signal based on the movement of the target object (column 4 lines 1-6: the effects in the data of variations in velocity due to the radar's changing positions can be compensated by adjusting radar waveform parameters (including frequency) in a complementary fashion to `stabilize` radar signal phase-shifts…this compensation is called "range stabilization" hereinafter); and
reducing an influence of the movement of the target object on the radar signal based on the correction information to obtain a corrected radar signal (column 3 lines 1-5: a method is provided of compensating for defocusing of range-Doppler map in a GMTI video signal caused by movement of radar during a coherent processing interval over which a set of radar pulses are processed).”
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) further anticipates “creating the synthetic aperture based on the corrected radar signal (column 8 lines 60-65: The Radar Processor collects this data and performs GMTI processing in a conventional manner, but upon data with improved quality. The position measuring, antenna pointing, and radar controllers are conventional elements of precision synthetic aperture radars).”
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) further anticipates “detecting a plurality of moving target objects in the target region; determining a respective portion of correction information of the radar signal based on a movement of each of the detected target objects (column 4 lines 20-30: the received echo is a time-delayed version of the transmitted signal with phase
PNG
media_image1.png
22
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where t.sub.s is the delay of the echo from a target reflector. Since the radar system processing is linear, then superposition holds for the returns from multiple targets, allowing us to deal with but a single response as representative); and reducing an influence of the movement of each of the detected target objects on the radar signal based on the respective correction information to obtain the corrected radar signal (column 4 lines 1-6: the effects in the data of variations in velocity due to the radar's changing positions can be compensated by adjusting radar waveform parameters (including frequency) in a complementary fashion to `stabilize` radar signal phase-shifts…this compensation is called "range stabilization" hereinafter; column 3 lines 1-5: a method is provided of compensating for defocusing of range-Doppler map in a GMTI video signal caused by movement of radar during a coherent processing interval over which a set of radar pulses are processed).”
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) further anticipates “the correction information is determined based on a movement-induced Doppler frequency shift in the radar signal (column 3 lines 47-52: An ideal GMTI system holds the combined transmit TX and receive RX antenna fixed in space, with no motion of its own. For such a fixed-to-the-ground system, all measured Doppler frequency shift is due to target motion; specifically, the target's closing velocity with the radar. A target with constant closing velocity exhibits constant Doppler shift).”
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) further anticipates “the correction information is determined based on a movement-induced phase difference between at least two echoes in the sequence of echoes in the radar signal (column 3lines 39-46: GMTI systems relate Doppler frequency to the relative velocity between a radar and a moving target. GMTI systems typically measure Doppler by emitting and collecting data from a sequence of pulses at a pulse-repetition frequency (PRF), and by measuring the pulse-to-pulse phase shift in the target returns. While Doppler also manifests itself in other ways, a pulse-to-pulse phase shift is nevertheless the principal effect measured by typical GMTI systems; column 3 line 65-column 4 line 6: Recall that Doppler is measured as a pulse-to-pulse phase shift. Note also that the amount of phase shift depends on the wavelength (or frequency) of the radar. Phase shifts are proportional to frequency. As taught by this invention, the effects in the data of variations in velocity due to the radar's changing positions can be compensated by adjusting radar waveform parameters (including frequency) in a complementary fashion to `stabilize` radar signal phase-shifts. This compensation is called "range stabilization" hereinafter).”
Regarding independent claim 14, which is a corresponding device claim of independent method claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Doerry (‘526) further anticipates ‘an interface circuit (Figure 5: RX antenna, Radar receiver)”, “a processing circuit (Figure 5: Radar processor).”
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 14, and which is a corresponding device claim of method claim 2, Doerry (‘526) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on independent claim 14, and which is a corresponding device claim of method claim 6, Doerry (‘526) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Regarding independent claim 20, which is a corresponding computer-readable medium claim of independent method claim 1, Doerry (‘526) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerry (US 6,765,526 B1), and further in view of Alalusi (US 2020/0132832 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Doerry (‘526) discloses the method of claim 2. Doerry (‘526) does not explicitly disclose “creating the synthetic aperture comprises constructing an image of the target region based on the corrected radar signal.”
Alalusi (‘832) relates to object detection. Alalusi (‘832) teaches “creating the synthetic aperture comprises constructing an image of the target region based on the corrected radar signal (paragraph 204: a two-dimensional surface area 2900 of the target object 2804 may be calculated from the image acquired by the sensor 2802…the number of pixels or other units of the image formed by the sensor 2802 can be counted or measured to determine the surface area 2900 of the target object 2804).”
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 method of Doerry (‘526) with the teaching of Alalusi (‘832) for improving measurement of velocity and angle of arrival of the target (Alalusi (‘832) – paragraph 4). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Doerry (‘526) and Alalusi (‘832)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission of sequence of pulses, to detect moving target from radar return.
Regarding claim 16, which is a corresponding device claim of method claim 3, Doerry (‘526) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerry (US 6,765,526 B1), and further in view of Sukumarann et al. (US 11,949,763 B2).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Doerry (‘526) discloses the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) does not explicitly disclose “determining the movement of the at least one target object comprises determining a speed of the target object by a two-dimensional Fourier transformation of the radar signal.”
Sukumarann et al. (‘763) relates to radar system. Sukumarann et al. (‘763) teaches “determining the movement of the at least one target object comprises determining a speed of the target object by a two-dimensional Fourier transformation of the radar signal (column 5 lines 34-40: the doppler (unit) 280 operate on the decompressed data received from the decompressor 275 to determine the Doppler (velocities)… the Doppler 280 may fetch decompressed data corresponding ranges 510A-T across N chirps to determine the Doppler…the Doppler 280 may perform FFT across the chirps for corresponding range values to determine the velocities).”
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 method of Doerry (‘526) with the teaching of Sukumarann et al. (‘763) for improved detection of moving target. In addition, both of the prior art references, (Doerry (‘526) and Sukumarann et al. (‘763)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission of sequence of pulses, to detect moving target from radar return.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, Doerry (‘526)/Sukumarann et al. (‘763) discloses the method of claim 4. Doerry (‘526) does not explicitly disclose “determining the speed of the at least one target object comprises transforming the radar signal into a Doppler range.”
Sukumarann et al. (‘763) relates to radar system. Sukumarann et al. (‘763) teaches “determining the speed of the at least one target object comprises transforming the radar signal into a Doppler range (column 5 lines 34-40: the doppler (unit) 280 operate on the decompressed data received from the decompressor 275 to determine the Doppler (velocities). In one embodiment, the Doppler 280 may fetch decompressed data corresponding ranges 510A-T across N chirps to determine the Doppler…the Doppler 280 may perform FFT across the chirps for corresponding range values to determine the velocities).”
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 method of Doerry (‘526) with the teaching of Sukumarann et al. (‘763) for improved detection of moving target. In addition, both of the prior art references, (Doerry (‘526) and Sukumarann et al. (‘763)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission of sequence of pulses, to detect moving target from radar return.
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 14, and which is a corresponding device claim of method claim 4, Doerry (‘526)/Sukumarann et al. (‘763) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 17, and which is a corresponding device claim of method claim 5, Doerry (‘526)/Sukumarann et al. (‘763) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerry (US 6,765,526 B1), and further in view of Jansen et al. (US 2015/46321 A1).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 6, Doerry (‘526) discloses the method of claim 6. Doerry (‘526) does not explicitly disclose “the influence of the movement of the target objects on the radar signal is iteratively reduced for each of the detected target objects.”
Jansen et al. (‘321) relates to radar system. Jansen et al. (‘321) teaches “the influence of the movement of the target objects on the radar signal is iteratively reduced for each of the detected target objects (paragraph 67: the system 700 can be implemented in a variety of manners, to suit various needs…radar/sonar data measurements are transformed by a distance-dependent transformation with first and second FFT blocks 712 and 714 (e.g., as used in Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) systems)…a number of such measurements are collected one after each other and object movement is detected as small differences between the measurements, based on the Doppler effect, to obtain speed-based information…information characterizing an angle at which the object or objects lie is obtained using multiple sensors in parallel and again the angle information is expected to be captured by small differences in the multiple measurements…the measurements are used to generate a model at block 730, which can be continuously updated as new data is obtained…multiple distance measurements can be combined to extract velocity information, and in certain embodiments measurements from multiple antennas are combined to extract angular information…differences between the model predictions and new data can be encoded before saving to memory…for complex numbered spectrum signals, the model may be built based upon angle and phase complex number representation, to facilitate a high compression ratio).”
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 method of Doerry (‘526) with the teaching of Jansen et al. (‘321) for improved detection of moving target (Jansen et al. (‘321) – paragraph 8). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Doerry (‘526) and Jansen et al. (‘321)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission of sequence of pulses, to detect moving target from radar return.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerry (US 6,765,526 B1), and further in view of Achour et al. (US 10,942,256 B2).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent claim 6, Doerry (‘526) discloses the method of claim 1. Doerry (‘526) does not explicitly disclose “providing the respective correction information for parameterizing at least one respective filter for reducing the influence of the movement of each of the detected target objects on the radar signal.”
Achour et al. (‘256) radar target detection and identification. Achour et al. (‘256) teaches “providing the respective correction information for parameterizing at least one respective filter for reducing the influence of the movement of each of the detected target objects on the radar signal (column 10 lines 43-65: 55) the iMTM interface module 104 also includes a multi-object tracker 118 to track the identified targets over time, such as, for example, with the use of a Kalman filter (314)…information on identified targets over time are stored at a target list and occupancy map 120, which keeps tracks of targets' locations and their movement over time as determined by the multi-object tracker 118…the tracking information provided by the multi-object tracker 118 and the micro-doppler signal provided by the micro-doppler module 116 are combined to produce an output containing the type of target identified, their location, their velocity, and so on (316)…this information from iMTM interface module 104 is then used to determine next actions to be performed by the iMTM antenna module 102 such as what beams to send next and with which parameters (e.g., beam width, azimuth and elevation angles, etc.) (318)…the determination may also include a selection of subarrays in the iMTM antenna arrays in the iMTM antenna module 102 from which to send the next beams).”
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 method of Doerry (‘526) with the teaching of Achour et al. (‘256) for improved detection of moving target. In addition, both of the prior art references, (Doerry (‘526) and Achour et al. (‘256)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission of sequence of pulses, to detect moving target from radar return.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“a first piece of correction information s i is determined according to
PNG
media_image2.png
46
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein k is an index of a transmission pulse in the sequence of transmission pulses,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
40
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a time difference between two consecutive transmission pulses in the sequence of transmission pulses,
PNG
media_image4.png
22
34
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is a radial speed of the target object, and
PNG
media_image5.png
18
20
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is a wavelength of the transmission pulse in the sequence of transmission pulses, and the correction information is based on the first correction information
PNG
media_image6.png
16
18
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.”
Claims 12-13 are dependent on claim 11, and therefore is also objected to be allowable.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishigami et al. (US 9,958,541 B2) relates to a radar device installed in a moving object (e.g., a vehicle), the moving object in which the radar device is installed, and a moving object speed detection method of detecting a speed of travel of the moving object (column 1 lines 7-11); provides a radar device that suppresses measurement error in traveling speed of a moving object in which the radar device is mounted (e.g., a vehicle), and improves detection precision of the relative speed of the target (column 2 lines 11-15); a radar device mounted in a moving object…the radar transmitter that transmits a radio-frequency radar transmission signal from a transmission antenna, at each transmission cycle, and a radar receiver that receives a plurality of returning signals that are generated as a result of the radar transmission signal reflected off of a plurality of targets, by a plurality of reception antennas...the radar receiver includes a plurality of antenna brunch processors that perform correlation processing of the received returning signals and the radar transmission signal, and generate respective correlation signals each including arrival delay information of each of the received returning signals, an electric power profile generator that generates electric power profiles for each arrival direction of the received returning signals and Doppler frequency component, using the generated correlation signals, and a stationary object group distribution generator that, based on the generated electric power profiles, obtains a first distribution of Doppler frequency components of a stationary object group including a plurality of stationary objects as the plurality of targets in the perimeter of the moving object, for each azimuth angle (column 2 lines 17-38); measurement error in traveling speed of a moving object in which the radar device is mounted (e.g., a vehicle) can be suppressed, and detection precision of the relative speed of the target improved (column 2 lines 39-42).
Yan et al. (US 11,131,766 B2) describes a method for the recognition of an object by means of a radar sensor system, wherein a primary radar signal is transmitted into an observation space, a secondary radar signal reflected by the object is received, a Micro-Doppler spectrogram of the secondary radar signal is generated, and at least one periodicity quantity relating to an at least essentially periodic motion of a part of the object is determined based on the Micro-Doppler spectrogram (column 1 lines 6-15).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 J Kelleher can be reached at 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.
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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648