-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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been overcome. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended section of both claims 11 and 12 reads “and performing another calculation of the distance the distance and the relative velocity between the electronic device and the object that reflects the transmission wave,” (emphasis added). Examiner is unsure if the term “the distance the distance” is intentional or an error. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurono (US 20180095173 A1) in view of Cornic et al. (US 20160259048 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurono discloses [Note: what Kurono fails to disclose is strike-through]
An electronic device (see pg. 1, paragraph 0002, “The present invention relates to a radar device”) comprising:
a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave (see Fig. 2, transmission unit 10 with transmission antenna 13; pg. 3, paragraph 0045, “The transmission waves SW which are output by the transmission antenna 13…The transmission waves SW transmitted forward from the vehicle A through the transmission antenna 13 are reflected from targets of other vehicles and so on, thereby becoming reflected waves”);
a reception antenna configured to receive a reflected wave that is the transmission wave having been reflected (see Fig. 2, receiving unit 20 with receiving antennae 21; pg. 3, paragraph 0047, “The individual receiving antennae 21 receives reflected waves from targets”); and
a signal processor configured to calculate a distance and a relative velocity between the electronic device and an object that reflects the transmission wave, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave (see Fig. 2, distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 47; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, the unit “calculates the distances and relative velocities of targets”), wherein
the signal processor is configured to combine the distance and the relative velocity a number of combinations (see Fig. 8, distance/relative velocity calculating unit 52; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, the analyzing unit combines data of distance bins and velocity bins and uses an FFT process on the combinations; pg. 5, paragraph 0090, “the distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 52 specifies the combinations of the distance bins and the velocity bins at which peaks exist, from the results of the two-dimensional FFT processes.”).
Cornic discloses
the signal processor is configured to combine the distance and the relative velocity a number of combinations set as a number of times the reception signal is combined (see Fig. 5, distance/Doppler map integration 514; Fig. 11, combining distance/Doppler maps; pg. 5, paragraph 0100, “More particularly, this step 514 performs a temporal integration of a plurality of successive distance/Doppler maps obtained in each beam formed in the preceding step, adapted to targets on a collision course.”; pg. 6, paragraph 0111, “The duration of the non-coherent integration may be 250 ms to 300 ms depending on the waveform used.”)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cornic into the invention of Kurono. Both Kurono and Cornic are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar object detection for vehicles. Kurono discloses an electronic device, a transmission antenna, a reception antenna, a signal processer to calculate distance and velocity, and the signal processor combining distance and velocity a number of times; however, Kurono fails to disclose combining the distance and velocity a number of combinations set as a number of times the reception signal is combined. This feature is disclosed by Cornic where successive reception signals can be combined, which results in the Doppler distance and velocity being combined as well. The combination of Kurono and Cornic would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve object detection by adjusting the combination/integration of radar distance and velocity data depending on location and velocity of the target object and carrier (see Cornic pg. 3, paragraph 0057, “At constant processing load, it is advantageous at high velocity, i.e. when detection at large distances is desired, to privilege the Doppler resolution of the radar to the detriment of distance resolution. In contrast, at low velocity, it is preferable to use a high distance resolution, separation by velocity not being very discriminate. This aspect will be described below with regard to processing operations carried out on the signal received by the radar.”).
Regarding claim 2, Kurono further discloses [Note: what Kurono fails to disclose is strike-through]
The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a controller (see Fig. 2, processing unit 40; pg. 3, paragraph 0056, the processing unit 40 controls the whole of the radar device) configured to
Cornic discloses
set the number of combinations, based on at least any of a resolution of the distance, a resolution of the relative velocity, or a frame interval or subframe interval of the transmission wave (see pg. 3, paragraph 0057, different velocity resolutions, “At constant processing load, it is advantageous at high velocity, i.e. when detection at large distances is desired, to privilege the Doppler resolution of the radar to the detriment of distance resolution. In contrast, at low velocity, it is preferable to use a high distance resolution, separation by velocity not being very discriminate. This aspect will be described below with regard to processing operations carried out on the signal received by the radar.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cornic into the invention of Kurono. Kurono discloses a controller; however, Kurono fails to disclose setting the number of combinations based on resolution of the distance, resolution of the relative velocity, or frame or subframe interval. This feature is disclosed by Cornic where velocity resolution can determine the number of combinations. The combination of Kurono and Cornic would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve object detection efficiency by adjusting the combination/integration of radar distance and velocity data depending on the velocity of the carrier and target objection.
Regarding claim 3, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a controller configured to perform control to make the electronic device operate in a first operation mode and a second operation mode that are different in a transmission mode of the transmission wave (see pg. 4, paragraph 0065, “The parameter changing unit 42 can change the first transmission period T1 depending on the first processing mode and the second processing mode.”; pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “The processing unit 40 performs processing in a processing mode selected from a first processing mode and a second processing mode”),
wherein
the first operation mode is a mode in which the electronic device operates with a resolution of the relative velocity that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings). Also, the processing unit 40 can select a processing mode on the basis of a target detection state (for example, the number of targets and the sizes of targets), the running state of the vehicle A (for example, the velocity of the vehicle A and the type of the road where the vehicle is running), and so on”; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, “The distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 52 specifies distance bins and velocity bins having predetermined values (levels) or more”; pg. 2, paragraph 0039, “In the two-dimensional FFT process, a limited distance range and a limited relative velocity range are determined as objects to be processed… it is possible to…improve velocity resolution”), and
the second operation mode is a mode in which the electronic device operates with the resolution of the relative velocity that is equal to or less than the predetermined value (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings). Also, the processing unit 40 can select a processing mode on the basis of a target detection state (for example, the number of targets and the sizes of targets), the running state of the vehicle A (for example, the velocity of the vehicle A and the type of the road where the vehicle is running), and so on”; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, “The distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 52 specifies distance bins and velocity bins having predetermined values (levels) or more”; pg. 2, paragraph 0039, “In the two-dimensional FFT process, a limited distance range and a limited relative velocity range are determined as objects to be processed… it is possible to…improve velocity resolution”).
Regarding claim 4, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to perform control to make the electronic device operate in the first operation mode when the object is detected in both the first operation mode and the second operation mode and the relative velocity between the electronic device and the object is equal to or greater than a predetermined velocity (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings). Also, the processing unit 40 can select a processing mode on the basis of a target detection state (for example, the number of targets and the sizes of targets), the running state of the vehicle A (for example, the velocity of the vehicle A and the type of the road where the vehicle is running), and so on”; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, “The distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 52 specifies distance bins and velocity bins having predetermined values (levels) or more”).
Regarding claim 5, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to perform control to make the electronic device operate in the second operation mode when the relative velocity between the electronic device and the object is equal to or less than a predetermined velocity (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings). Also, the processing unit 40 can select a processing mode on the basis of a target detection state (for example, the number of targets and the sizes of targets), the running state of the vehicle A (for example, the velocity of the vehicle A and the type of the road where the vehicle is running), and so on”; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, “The distance/relative-velocity calculating unit 52 specifies distance bins and velocity bins having predetermined values (levels) or more”).
Regarding claim 6, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein when the object is detected in a mode that is either the first operation mode or the second operation mode, the controller is configured to perform control to make the electronic device to operate in the mode in which the object is detected (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings). Also, the processing unit 40 can select a processing mode on the basis of a target detection state (for example, the number of targets and the sizes of targets), the running state of the vehicle A (for example, the velocity of the vehicle A and the type of the road where the vehicle is running), and so on”).
Regarding claim 7, Kurono further discloses [Note: what Kurono fails to disclose is strike-through]
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processor is configured to calculate a movement distance of the object, based on the relative velocity between the electronic device and the object and a time interval between frames of the transmission wave (see pg. 2, paragraph 0029, “The radar device 1 is an FCM (Fast Chirp Modulation) type radar device configured to detect the distance and relative velocity of each target existing in a detection range L by transmitting chirp waves whose frequency continuously increases or decreases”); and
Cornic discloses
determine whether to combine the distance and the relative velocity in accordance with whether, within the movement distance, there is a movement to an adjacent cell in a distance domain of a result of velocity Fourier transform processing (see pg. 5, paragraph 0102, “The integration is carried out on each of the distance and Doppler axes of each map 81, while taking account, during the integration time, of possible distance and Doppler migrations, and while limiting the integration to the temporal movements of pixels possibly corresponding to collision courses:”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cornic into the invention of Kurono. Kurono discloses calculating a movement distance of an object; however, Kurono fails to disclose combining if there is movement to an adjacent cell in the distance domain. This feature is disclosed by Cornic where distance and Doppler migration is taken into account when combining. The combination of Kurono and Cornic would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve object detection efficiency by adjusting the combination/integration of radar distance and velocity data depending on the relative velocity of the carrier and target objection.
Regarding claim 8, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim l, wherein the signal processor is configured to
combine the distance and the relative velocity in accordance with the number of combinations prior to threshold-based determination processing using a constant false alarm rate (see pg. 3, paragraph 0050, “The reception signals SR output from the receiving antennae 21 are amplified by amplifiers (not shown in the drawings) (for example, low-noise amplifiers), and then are input to the mixers 31. The mixers 31 partially mix the transmission signals ST and the reception signals SR, and remove unnecessary signal components, thereby generating beat signals SB, and output the beat signals to the A/D converters 32.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to switch between the first operation mode and the second operation mode within one frame of the transmission wave (see pg. 3, paragraph 0058, “Selection of a processing mode is performed, for example, on the basis of contents input to an input unit (not shown in the drawings).”; pg. 9, paragraph 0139, transmission unit can transmit one chirp wave in a transmission period).
Regarding claim 10, Kurono further discloses
The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the first operation mode and the second operation mode are modes in which the resolution of the relative velocity is different depending on a number of chirp signals included in a frame of the transmission wave (see pg. 2, paragraph, 0035, the transmission periods can transmit different number of chirps).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 is applied. The only difference between claim 1 and claim 11 is that claim 1 refers to an apparatus while claim 11 refers to a method. The examiner considers Kurono pg. 1, paragraph 0002 (“The present invention relates to a radar device and a target detecting method”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claim 11. Kurono further discloses
performing another calculation of the distance the distance and the relative velocity between the electronic device and the object that reflects the transmission wave, based on another transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and another reception signal received as the reflected wave, and based on a result of the combining of the distance and the relative velocity (see Fig. 13, S29; Fig. 14, S40).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 11 are applied. Kurono further discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to (see pg. 3, paragraph 0057, “The CPU of the micro computer reads out programs from the ROM [read only memory], and executes the programs”):
Regarding claim 13, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Brosche (US 20210132212 A1); A method for ascertaining a transverse velocity component of at least one radar target with the aid of a radar device, including the steps: periodically sending identically modulated, transmitted signals with the aid of a transmitting device having a defined number of transmission elements, into a defined sensing region of the radar device, during a defined measuring period; receiving at least one received radar signal reflected by the radar target, using a receiving device having a defined number of receiving elements; transmitting the received radar signal to an evaluation device and converting the received radar signal from analog to digital; carrying out a two-dimensional Fourier transformation to generate, in each instance, a velocity-distance spectrum of the digital, measured values for each combination of transmission and receiving element; detecting at least one target reflection of the radar target in light of defined, peak values in a magnitude spectrum of the velocity-distance spectrum; ascertaining a distance of the radar target from the radar device, as well as a radial velocity component relative to the radar device, from the velocity-distance spectrum; determining at least one angle of the radar target relative to the antenna; selecting the radar target, for which the transverse velocity component is intended to be ascertained; carrying out an inverse Fourier transformation of the target reflection of the radar target, selected in this manner; and ascertaining the transverse velocity component of the radar target from the transformed, measured values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights