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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 12 specifically, the claims recite “select the first candidate coordinate from the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate as a first radar coordinate of the second radar according to the first coordinate and the second coordinate.” It is unclear how a second candidate coordinate can be selected as a first candidate coordinate when there already is a first candidate coordinate. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret these limitations as selecting a first radar coordinate from a first candidate coordinate and second candidate coordinate.
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 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) 1-2, 6, 10-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon (US PAT 6225942) in view of Bilik et al. (US 20180284220 hereinafter Bilik) and further in view of Garcia (US 20080252527).
Regarding claim 1, Alon teaches A multi-radar positioning system, comprising: a first radar (Abstract “Track data from multiple radar systems corresponding to a common target are associated into track pairs”),
detecting a first object and a second object to respectively (Abstract “Track data from multiple radar systems corresponding to a common target are associated into track pairs”) obtain a first coordinate and a second coordinate on a first coordinate system (2:45-50 “These reports may include (for each target) multi-dimensional position and velocity information, preferably as three spatial components (x, y, and z coordinates) and three velocity components (quantifying three directional components of target velocity).”);
a second radar, detecting the first object (4:1-2 “Target Pair: two reports by different radars corresponding to the same single target.”) and
the second object to respectively obtain a third coordinate and a fourth coordinate on a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system (4:64-65 “RRC: "Radar referenced coordinates", a coordinate system defined in relation to a specific local radar antenna.” [thus for 2 targets tracked by 2 radars there are 4 coordinates on 2 coordinate systems]); and
a controller, communicatively coupled to the first radar and the second radar and configured to (5:11-15 “The data processors 19 execute the registration method of the invention and output the results for use at a radar display, which may be located either at the data processor or elsewhere”):
estimate a first candidate coordinate and a second candidate coordinate of the second radar (5:53-56 “This function 30 calculates an initial estimate of the average normalized distance D.sub.av, between the N track pairs reported by "master" and "slave" radars”);
select the first candidate coordinate from the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate as a first radar coordinate of the second radar according to the first coordinate and the second coordinate (5:44-49 “The resulting multiple track reports (in ECEF coordinates) are evaluated for computability and validity by a pair association function 26, which correlates tracks to provisionally associate certain tracks into target pairs. A pair test module 28 then selects the optimum track pairs for registration”); and
output the first radar coordinate (5:11-15 “The data processors 19 execute the registration method of the invention and output the results for use at a radar display, which may be located either at the data processor or elsewhere”).
Alon does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bilik teaches
a controller, communicatively coupled to the first radar and the second radar and configured to (0025 “The first radar system 202 and the second radar system 204 are in communication with processor 235”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bilik with the teachings of Alon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Bilik 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bilik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Bilik and Alon disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Garcia teaches
estimate a first candidate coordinate and a second candidate coordinate of the second radar on the first coordinate system according to the third coordinate and the fourth coordinate (fig 14; 0165 “Now the positioning becomes a problem of obtaining intersection of a first circle 500 and a second circle 510. The first circle 500 is defined by a first center 505 and a first radius 520. Similarly the second circle 510 is defined by a second center 515 and a second radius 525. Thus, trigonometry is used to determine the intersection of the two circles. FIG. 15 shows how this information is used to determine the intersection of the two circles. Applying trigonometry to solve for the distance (d) between the first center circle 505 and the second center 515. Moreover, trigonometry is used to solve for the angle theta 530 in the triangle 526. Solving this gives the positioning system enough information to define two vectors 520 and 535. By vector addition, two possible sets of coordinates can be obtained”);
select the first candidate coordinate from the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate as a first radar coordinate of the second radar according to the first coordinate and the second coordinate (0170 “compare new intersection solutions with previously obtained ones, and choose the one that has a consistent moving vector with sensor data. FIG. 16 depicts the newly formed circle intersection marked a first cross 550 and a second cross 555 on the top small circle 560, compare with previous triangulated relative positions indicated by a third cross 565 and a fourth cross 570 on the bottom circle 575”);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Garcia with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve coverage area (Oh 0445). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Garcia merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular localization features. Since both the cited prior art and Garcia disclose similar localization systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: detect a third object through the first radar to obtain a fifth coordinate on the first coordinate system; detect the third object through the second radar to obtain a sixth coordinate on the second coordinate system; and select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate according to the fifth coordinate and the sixth coordinate (Bilik 0021 “Each transducer 110a, 110b, 110c, 110d may independently obtain direct range measurements to various objects in its environment. Additionally or alternatively, the transducers 110a, 110b, 110c and 110d may be used to obtain bistatic range measurements.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bilik with the teachings of Alon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Bilik 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bilik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Bilik and Alon disclose similar radars to detect multiple objects with multiple radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination for a third object would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first angle of arrival according to the first coordinate (Alon 11:33-38 “the range is divided by the earth's radius which practically eliminates the last part of each equation, resulting in an expression for velocity which depends only on angles (azimuth and, if available, elevation”); obtain a second angle of arrival according to the third coordinate (Alon 11:47-53 “The total offset can be formulated by calculating the effects in range and azimuth offset on the state vector which result from rotation and offset of the system coordinates. The azimuth bias error can be calculated from the variation of .THETA. with offset of the state vector due to the coordinate rotation”); obtain a first included angle formed by a second radar coordinate of the first radar, the first coordinate, and the first radar coordinate; calculate a second included angle according to the first angle of arrival, the second angle of arrival, and the first included angle, wherein the second included angle indicates an included angle between a first lateral direction of the first radar and a second lateral direction of the second radar; and output the second included angle (Bilik 0027 “the bistatic radar signal is reflected off of the point of the sphere 210 that is closest to the baseline 206 and the length of line 224 is equal to the length of line 226. As a result, the angle between the perpendicular bisector 214 and the line 224 (labelled θ) is equal to the angle between the perpendicular bisector 214 and the line 226 (also labelled θ).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bilik with the teachings of Alon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Bilik 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bilik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Bilik and Alon disclose similar radars to detect multiple objects with multiple radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination for a third object would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 9, further comprising: a third radar, communicatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to (Alon 5:31-38 “FIG. 3, begins with multiple radar track, reports as inputs, obtained from multiple SRTs, located at different known locations. The multiple track reports are converted (step 24) into ECEF coordinates, preferably by converting from polar coordinates (measured for each target by the SRTs) into RRC, then applying the Euler transformations given above.”):
obtain a second radar coordinate of the third radar on the second coordinate system; rotate the second radar coordinate according to the count value to obtain a third radar coordinate of the third radar on the first coordinate system (Alon 6:1-11 “Next, the slave portion of each track pair is converted from ECEF to RRC coordinates by an ECEF to RRC conversion function 31 and the results are stored in the RRC array 29. This con version function 31 preferably uses the Euler ECEF to RRC rotating expressions previously given (equations 1-2). The resulting RRC description of the slave track data is used by the following step, the Azimuth Bias calculation loop 32.”); and
output the third radar coordinate (Alon 5:11-15 “The data processors 19 execute the registration method of the invention and output the results for use at a radar display, which may be located either at the data processor or elsewhere”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a first distance between the first object and the second radar according to the third coordinate (Alon 8:54-56 “Next the function calculates (step 43) the new distance between the slave and master track range elements by the equations”); determine a second distance between the second object and the second radar according to the fourth coordinate (Alon 8:54-56 “Next the function calculates (step 43) the new distance between the slave and master track range elements by the equations”); and determine that a fifth coordinate is one of the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate (Alon 8:54-56 “Next the function calculates (step 43) the new distance between the slave and master track range elements by the equations”), in response to a third distance between the fifth coordinate and the first coordinate on the first coordinate system being equal to the first distance and a fourth distance between the fifth coordinate and the second coordinate being equal to the second distance (Bilik 0026 “When the target reflector 210 is located on the perpendicular bisector 214 (i.e., when the perpendicular bisector 214 passes through the center 208 of the sphere), the radial lines 220 and 222 are equal in length to each other. FIG. 2 shows the target reflector 210 located on the perpendicular bisector 214. Thus, the lengths of these radial lines 220 and 222 are both the same and are indicated as R.sub.1.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bilik with the teachings of Alon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Bilik 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bilik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Bilik and Alon disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 6 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon (US PAT 6225942) in view of Bilik et al. (US 20180284220 hereinafter Bilik) and further in view of Garcia (US 20080252527) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Thome et al. (US 20060220951 hereinafter Thome).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate a first distance between the first candidate coordinate and the fifth coordinate; obtain a second distance between the sixth coordinate and the second radar; (Alon 2:60-65 “Each coefficient is normalized with respect to a corresponding track measurement variance. For each target track pair, a normalized distance D between the two corresponding normalized state vectors is then calculated, and the first bias parameter is adjusted in a search loop to find the parameter value which minimizes the average normalized distance D (averaged over multiple track pairs)”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thome teaches select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate, in response to the first distance being equal to the second distance (0135 As described in conjunction with FIG. 2A, if the two radars had no internal range (time delay) differences, it would be expected that the two bistatic returns would align in range. However, as indicated, a range difference of R is measured between the bistatic returns at the two radars. The value, R, is the range calibration value described above.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thome with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Thome 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thome merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Thome disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-9, 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon (US PAT 6225942) in view of Bilik et al. (US 20180284220 hereinafter Bilik) and further in view of Garcia (US 20080252527) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koppelaar et al. (US 20230152435 hereinafter Koppelaar).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first vector from the first candidate coordinate to the first coordinate (Alon Abstract “Track pair data is then used to calculate state vectors in a multi-dimensional vector space (preferably six-dimensional), with state vector components corresponding to both position and velocity information. From these state vectors an average normalized statistical distance is calculated”);
obtain a second vector from the first candidate coordinate to the second coordinate (Alon Abstract “Track pair data is then used to calculate state vectors in a multi-dimensional vector space (preferably six-dimensional), with state vector components corresponding to both position and velocity information. From these state vectors an average normalized statistical distance is calculated”; 5:35-40 “The multiple track reports are converted (step 24) into ECEF coordinates, preferably by converting from polar coordinates (measured for each target by the SRTs) into RRC, then applying the Euler transformations given above.”);
obtain a first angle of arrival according to the third coordinate; obtain a second angle of arrival according to the fourth coordinate (Alon 10:45-55 “Referring now to FIG. 7, the track report in RRC coordinates is given by the vector denoted X.sub.RRC, where . . . where .THETA. is the azimuthal angle of the target, R is the range to the target”); and
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate according to the first vector, the second vector, the first angle of arrival, and the second angle of arrival (0101 “The processor 102 is configured to search for a set of directions of arrival angles, one for each of the K targets, by the repeated evaluation of the objective function for a candidate matrix A that include vectors that represent directions of arrival angles from the search space”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to: rotate the first vector according to the first angle of arrival to obtain a third vector (Alon 11:47-53 “The total offset can be formulated by calculating the effects in range and azimuth offset on the state vector which result from rotation and offset of the system coordinates. The azimuth bias error can be calculated from the variation of .THETA. with offset of the state vector due to the coordinate rotation”); rotate the second vector according to the second angle of arrival to obtain a fourth vector (11:47-53 “The total offset can be formulated by calculating the effects in range and azimuth offset on the state vector which result from rotation and offset of the system coordinates. The azimuth bias error can be calculated from the variation of .THETA. with offset of the state vector due to the coordinate rotation”); calculate a first included angle between the third vector and the fourth vector (Bilik 0027 “the angle between the perpendicular bisector 214 and the line 224 (labelled θ) is equal to the angle between the perpendicular bisector 214 and the line 226 (also labelled θ). Additionally, when the center 208 of the sphere is located on perpendicular bisector 214, a bistatic radar signal generated by the first radar system 202 and received by the second radar system 204 traverses a same path as a bistatic radar signal generated by the second radar system 204 and received by the first radar system 202, only in reverse.”);
and select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate, in response to an absolute value of the first included angle corresponding to the first candidate coordinate being smaller than an absolute value of a second included angle corresponding to the second candidate coordinate (Koppelaar 0081 “f as a function of A for a given antenna response x has many local maxima. The search for the most likely matrix A, i.e. the one that maximizes f, may or may not be performed exhaustively.” EQ 3 [under para. 0090]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate the second included angle according to a difference between a sum of the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and the second angle of arrival (Alon 10:64-67 “.THETA. is the azimuthal angle of the target, R is the range to the target, and .PHI. is the elevation angle (not shown in FIG. 7). The velocity is derived from the position according to the equations”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate the second included angle according to a difference between a sum of the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and the second angle of arrival in response to the first angle of arrival being greater than 90 degrees (0094 “The response can be denoted with a vector: a.sub.1=a(θ.sub.1). When at least two antenna elements have a distance ≤λ/2, and the DoA angle θ may be between −90 and 90 degrees, any two single target responses will be different and therefore the DoA angle of a single target response can be unambiguously determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate a first difference between the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and calculate the second included angle according to a second difference between the first difference and the second angle of arrival (Alon 10:64-67 “.THETA. is the azimuthal angle of the target, R is the range to the target, and .PHI. is the elevation angle (not shown in FIG. 7). The velocity is derived from the position according to the equations”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate a first difference between the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and calculate the second included angle according to a second difference between the first difference and the second angle of arrival, in response to the first angle of arrival being less than or equal to 90 degrees (0094 “The response can be denoted with a vector: a.sub.1=a(θ.sub.1). When at least two antenna elements have a distance ≤λ/2, and the DoA angle θ may be between −90 and 90 degrees, any two single target responses will be different and therefore the DoA angle of a single target response can be unambiguously determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: update (Alon 9:18-24 “The value of D.sub.av and the corresponding .DELTA.Az and .DELTA.R are then saved, for example in an array in memory (step 44). The calculated value of D.sub.av is then tested for a local minimum (step 45). If a local minimum is detected, the value of .DELTA.Az is incremented (step 46) and the method loops back to repeat steps 41 through 45 until a local minimum is detected”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches update a count value stored in the controller according to the second included angle (0164-0165 “The objective function comprises f(k, n, x). Thus, f is a function of the input dataset (or “snapshot”) x and of the candidate DoA angles being indexed with k and n. [0165] The method proceeds to step 514 in which index n is incremented by one. The method returns to step 509.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
EMADI et al. (US 20240053437) discloses “Disclosed herein are systems and methods for radar networking for improved angular resolution. In an embodiment, a radar network includes a first radar and a second radar attached to a vehicular platform or another appropriate platform. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights