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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 23190923, filed on August 10, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
A new reference has been found necessitated by amendment.
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.
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.
The following is a list of well-known and established equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
591
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Radar Principles for the Non-Specialist 3rd Edition by J.C. Toomay.
Note that the first PRF in the numerator for Range Ambiguity should be Pulse Repetition Interval PRI not Pulse Repetition Frequency PRF. This is a type error.
One of ordinary skill understands that depending on the PRF or PRI that there exist a maximum unambiguous range for velocity because velocity is based on Doppler. If the PRF is not small enough, then the velocity will wrap around in the frequency domain. To undue this, the velocity needs to be unwrapped (also known as un-walking or de-aliasing). Unwrapping for the measured radial (Doppler) velocity takes into account the unambiguous velocity (also known as Nyquist velocity) as evidenced by the Introduction of “Efficient Dealiasing of Doppler Velocities Using Local Environment Constraints” by Michael D. Eilts, which has been attached to the docket. Also, range and Doppler ambiguities are inversely related. For a good illustration, see NPL attached Maximum Unambiguous Range.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laghezza (US 20210255303 A1) as evidenced by Eilts in view of Wu (US 20220334240 A1), Hartzstein (US 20050285773 A1) and Dawber (US 20150084805 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Laghezza discloses a method performed by a radar system, the method comprising:
assigning a first pulse rate interval (PRI) to a first radar sensor in a radar network (Para. 44 “The direct/indirect velocity estimates (which are different if the velocity is ambiguous) can be expanded considering the different repetition interval.);
assigning a second PRI to a second radar sensor in the radar network (Id.);
receiving, for an object detected by the first and second radar sensors, a first ambiguous velocity estimate from the first radar sensor (Para. 44 “initial ambiguous estimate”), and
a second ambiguous velocity estimate from the second radar sensor (Looking at the cited passages of Paras. 44, it is clear that each of the different pulse repetition interval will result in different unambiguous velocities.) and;
determining a first maximum detectable velocity (Vmax) for the first radar sensor based on the first PRI (Para. 44), and
determining a second Vmax for the second radar sensor based on the second PRI (Para. 44);
generating a first velocity vector for the first radar sensor based on the first Vmax and the first ambiguous velocity estimate (Para. “Unfolding” as evidenced by Eilts cited with respect to the Graham factors. Alternatively, assuming Applicant disagrees and, in an effort, to expedite prosecution, it would be obvious to apply the simple equations in the introduction of Eilts to perform Unfolding wherein computation efficiency would be the motivation. Again, the words unwrapping, unfolding and dealiasing are used interchangeably), and
generating a second velocity vector for the second radar sensor based on the second Vmax and the second ambiguous velocity estimate (Para. 51 “match” implies at least two measured velocities are used to unfold to get the true velocity);
comparing velocity values in the first velocity vector to velocity values in the second velocity vector (Para. 51); and
identifying and outputting a velocity value that is common to the first and second velocity vectors as a correct unambiguous velocity of the object (Para. 51 “closest match” wherein it is obvious that zero is the closest match and the optimal solution. Here, it is believed that Laghezza uses “closet match” because there are certain errors in measurement; e.g. electronic noise, that may be unavoidable. Zero is more likely the theoretical and ideal solution).
The difference between Laghezza and the claimed invention is that Laghezza does not specify that the different repetition intervals coming from different radars. Also, Laghezza does not specify the closest match being zero, which the Examiner believes to be obvious.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches “Multiple-PRI sampling may be carried out with a fused-PRF chirp sequence in which chirp sequences of different transmitters (TX) are interleaved and processed as a single frame, with the results coherently combined (Wu Para. 27).” See also Wu at Para. 43.
In view of the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use different transmitters which would allow for spatial resolution thereby improving detection separability as well as reducing the risk of total failure in the event that one transmitter quits working or is degraded.
In the same field of endeavor, Hartzstein teaches “the Range-Doppler process is implemented using two or more trains of chirps, each train having a different pulse repetition interval (PRI). Each train gives multiple possible velocities of the target, according to the value of the PRI of the train. The multiple possible velocities for the different trains are compared, and the true velocity of the target is determined by finding a common velocity value in the results of the different trains.”
In view of the teachings of Hartzstein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing for the closest match to be common meaning an exact match wherein an exact match would be optimal meaning improved accuracy, which would be the motivation.
Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber does not teach first and second radar transmitting at different times wherein the difference is less than a possible range migration of the object during measurement.
In the same field of endeavor, Dawber teaches “the pulse generator 102 of radar system 101 is configured to control generation of a series of pulses of electromagnetic radiation to be transmitted by the radar system, wherein the time between pulses and pulse characteristics are controlled such that any range migration due to target movement in the time between pulses of said series is substantially equal and opposite to any variation in range-Doppler coupling between the pulses due to said target movement. In this way the pulse compressed target position remains in the same range cell from pulse to pulse, independent of target radial velocity (Para. 61).”
In view of the teaches of Dawber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to modify the time between transmissions such that moving target is unable to move from range cell to another range cell thereby eliminating ambiguities thereby improving accuracy.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber teaches the method of claim 1, 8 and 15 generating the first and second velocity vectors comprises: determining a first Vmax range that is double the first Vmax value; and determining a second Vmax range that is double the second Vmax value (Laghezza Para. 44).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber teaches the method of claims 2, 9 and 16 wherein generating the first and second velocity vectors further comprises: generating a first set of possible velocity values adding and subtracting multiples of the first Vmax range to the first ambiguous velocity estimate and including the first set of possible velocity values in the first velocity vector; and generating a second set of possible velocity values adding and subtracting multiples of the second Vmax range to the second ambiguous velocity estimate and including the second set of possible velocity values in the second velocity vector (“Unfolding” as previously cited by Laghezza and evidenced by Eilts as discussed above in respect with the Graham factors.).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber teaches the method of claim 1, 8 and 15 wherein the first and second radar sensors have overlapping fields of view in which the object is concurrently detected by the first and second radar sensors (As modified by Wu wherein angular/spatial resolution would inherently require the target being illuminated by more than one transmitter.).
As to claims 5 and 12, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber teaches the method of claim 1 and 8 wherein the first and second radar sensors are deployed on an automated vehicle (Laghezza Para. 30).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber does not teach the method of claim 1, 8 and 15 wherein the first and second ambiguous velocity estimates are received as at least one of raw radar data and point cloud data (raw data received by item 102 of Laghezza Fig.1).
Note that the claim requires either one of raw data or point data. Raw data is interpreted as data received by the radar whereas point cloud data is interpreted as data received over a network. If cloud data were required by the claim, note that Kim (US 20180319280 A1) teaches “The object-presence 26 may indicate one or more instances of the detectable-objects 20 that are also detected by the object-detector 18, and/or one or more instances of a hidden-object 28 that is not detected by the object-detector 18 of the host-vehicle 12 but is detected by one or more instances of a detection-device 34 in communication with an instance of the other-transmitters 24. That is, it is contemplated that each instance of the other-transmitters 24 is in communication with their own form or version of an object-detector that may include the same or different devices (camera, radar, lidar, and/or proximity-sensor) as the object-detector 18 of the host-vehicle 12 (Para. 11).” The motivation would be to detect hidden objects.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, Laghezza, as evidenced by Eilts, in view of Wu, Hartzstein and Dawber teaches the method of claim 1, 8 and 15 wherein the first and second radar sensors are at least one of multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) radar sensors, orthogonal frequency division modulated (OFDM) radar sensors, and frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar sensors (Laghezza Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648