DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the amendment of January 22, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
The remarks with the amendment have been carefully considered. The rejections set forth in the office action of October 24, 2025 have been overcome by the amendment of January 22, 2026 and by the remarks with that amendment.
The substitute specification has been ENTERED.
The amendment to the claims is extensive, necessitating further search and examination. New rejections are set forth below.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Prior Art Rejections Necessitated by the Amendment
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics, with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
First, looking to independent claim 1 as newly and extensively amended, Achour et al (‘343) plainly discloses, “A radar device” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [0023] at lines 1-3.
The claim 1 feature, “reception circuitry configured to receive a reception signal from a reception antenna” (lines 2-3) is met in Achour et al (‘343), at least, by item 106 in Figure 1 and by item 108 in Figure 1.
The claim 1 features, “sample the reception signal for predetermined periods to provide a sampled signal, and subject the sampled signal to analog-to-digital (A/D) conversion for outputting data in a first data output data format that includes raw data of the reception signal” (lines 3-6) are not explicitly disclosed in Achour et al (‘343), but would be understood by one of ordinary skill-in-the-art in that an analog echo signal is returned and in that analog echo signal is digitally processed.
Subasingha et al (‘806) teaches the use of sampling with an analog-to-digital converter operating on the “reception signal.” Particularly, Subasingha et al (‘806) teaches to use a sampling device with an analog-to-digital converter for the advantage of simplifying the calculations on the “reception signal,” noting, for example, paragraph [0039] at lines 1-8, and, paragraph [0126] (noting, “analog-to-digital converter” and “one or more samples of the signal”); that the “reception signal” can be for “one or more radar sensors” (paragraph [0103] at lines 9-15); and, teaches to use an analog-to-digital converter at an input for a digital processing device for the advantage that the signal is in the proper form for digital processing (e.g., Figure 1). So, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Achour et al (‘343) as taught by Subasingha et al (‘806) to obtain the advantages taught by Subasingha et al (‘806), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
On lines 7-9 of claim 1, the “transform circuitry configured to receive the reception signal in the first output data format, to generate point cloud data from the raw data and to output data in a second data format” is met in the combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above is met in Achour et al (‘343), at least, by paragraph [0030] at lines 1-8 (noting the “data pre-processing module 112); paragraph [0056] at lines 1-8 (noting the “data pre-processing module 112); paragraph [0067] at lines 1-8; and, item 112 in drawing Figure 1.
On lines 11-15 of claim 1, the “object recognition circuitry configured to receive the output of the transform circuitry in the second output format, perform object recognition on the point cloud data, and to output data in a third output data format based upon the object recognition performed on the point cloud data” is met in the combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above is met in Achour et al (‘343), at least, by item 104 in drawing Figure 1, or, any one or more of items 114, 118, 120, 122, and 124 in drawing Figure 1. Please note the text “output data” beside item 120 in Figure 1; paragraph [0056] at lines 8-17 of Achour et al (‘343); and, paragraph [0057] at lines 1-3 of Achour et al (‘343).
In that each and every claimed feature recited in newly-amended, independent claim 1 is plainly present in the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above, independent claim 1 is obvious over the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 20 as newly-amended are substantially the same as the remarks above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, “the first output data format” include “in-phase and quadrature (IQ) data” for the advantage of preserving phase information from the echo signal, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Without the quadrature component of the echo signal, the echo signal would not have any phase information.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, noting, the disclosed use of “Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (“FMCW”)” in Achour et al (‘343), for example, page 2, right column at lines 3-4; paragraph [0104] at line 4 (noting the word “chirp”); and, page 13, right column at lines 13-19. The words, “divided” and “periodically” in claim 3 are interpreted as being what is in view in the passage on page 13 at lines 13-19 as the “period of the waveform.”
The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, noting, the disclosed “plurality of antennas” and arrays in Achour et al (‘343), for example, page 13, right column at lines 1-9. Claim 4 is interpreted as meaning that the “raw data” is “divided in the antennas” by the “raw data” taking a plurality of paths through the various antennas of the array.
The remarks with reference to dependent claim 5 are substantially those made in the previous paragraph concerning dependent claim 4, noting the disclosure of FMCW and chirps in Achour et al (‘343). Please see the rejection of dependent claim 3 above.
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, noting, the use of different types of scans in paragraphs [0038], [0107], [0113], and [0118], as well as noting the functioning of item 916 in drawing Figure 9.
The further limitations of dependent claim 7 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejections of claims 1 and 3, noting, the use of FMCW and chirps in Achour et al (‘343).
The further limitations of dependent claim 8 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5, noting, the use of FMCW and chirps with a “plurality of antennas” or arrays.
The further limitations of dependent claim 9 are met by the applied combination of Achour et al (‘343) in view of Subasingha et al (‘806) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, noting, the disclosed use of “Fourier analysis” in Achour et al (‘343), for example, page 2, right column at lines 2-5; and, paragraph [0059] at lines 1-10. In that Achour et al (‘343) of the applied combination discloses the use of “Fourier analysis” generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any suitable form of Fourier transform could be used, including the Fast Fourier Transform, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 10 are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, that the processed cloud data includes positions generally, noting, for example, in Achour et al (‘343), paragraph [0070] at line 13 (i.e., the last line); paragraph [0067] at lines 1-10 (noting “accurate localization”); paragraph [0072] at lines 1-3; Figure 8, item 818; and, Figure 9, item 914 (noting occupancy map). The disclosed detection of position in Achour et al (‘343), including tracking, would necessarily include “a first position.”
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 11, these are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claims 1 and 10, in Achour et al (‘343) please note the use of range, elevation, and azimuth, noting, for example, Figures 4, 5, 6, and 8 (noting item 808); paragraph [0062] (noting the use of spherical coordinates for distance and direction), paragraph [0065], paragraph [0072} at lines 1-3; and, paragraph [0084] at lines 6-9.
Similarly, regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 12, in Achour et al (‘343) please note the use of velocity data. If the radar is in motion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the velocity data be relative to the moving radar, rather than relative to the earth, that being more useful since data is being gathered/used with respect to the radar and that simplifying computations.
The remarks concerning the further limitations of dependent claim 13 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 12. In addition, in that velocity is gathered in Achour et al (‘343) and is of use in Achour et al (‘343), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and consider changes of velocity (i.e., acceleration) for the advantage of optimizing location/range and velocity data in tracking, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
For the further limitations of dependent claim 14, please note the use of intensity in Achour et al (‘343), noting, for example, paragraph [0059] at lines 1-10; paragraph [0062] at lines 6-8; paragraph [0063] at lines 4-6; paragraph [0065] at lines 3-6; and, drawing Figure 6 (noting “Intensity Cube”).
Next, as for the further limitations of dependent claim 15, please note the disclosure in Achour et al (‘343) of a “noise detection module” in paragraph [0097] at line 8, as well as, page 2, right column at lines 4-5 (noting “noise”). With the presence of noise in the signal in Achour et al (‘343), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the noise from the useful portion of the signal in order to optimize the functioning of the device with a reasonable likelihood of success. In Achour et al (‘343), please note the use of filtering in paragraphs [0074] and [0076].
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 16, although there is no mention of a “constant false alarm rate (CFAR) process” in either of the references of the applied combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “constant false alarm rate (CFAR) process” in the applied combination for the advantage of minimizing false alarms in processing the received radar data.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try threshold detection in the applied combination for the advantage of a simple method of detection and for the advantage of reduction of unwanted signals (i.e., those below the threshold), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 18 are met by the applied combination as applied above to claims 17, 14, and 1, particularly noting the use of a “dynamic threshold” in Achour et al (‘343) in paragraph [0076] at lines 7-9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the “dynamic threshold” according to position for the advantage of optimizing the detection of desired targets in various levels of noise at different locations.
Finally, as for the further limitations of dependent claim 19, the remarks are substantially those made above with reference to claim 18. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to detect signal intensity at a “second position around the first position” in an effort to optimize the operation of the “dynamic threshold” in the detection of desired targets in various levels of noise at different locations.
Finality of this Office Action
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648