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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1—20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application claims benefit to the foreign priority date of 09 March 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0077] – last line -- “from 13 to 13” should read “from 13 to 0”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means", but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a processing system configured to: determine a covariance…, and determine at least one of a motion and a presence of an object…” as recited in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-12; 13-15; and 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 6-12 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine; claims 13-15 is directed to a system, which is a machine; and claims 17, 19-20 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, the claims fall in one of the 4 statutory classes.
Step 2a, Prong 1:
Representative claim 1 recites determine a covariance of a plurality of chirps; and determine at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view based on the determined covariance. Therefore, the limitations are directed to “determining a motion/presence of an object based on a determined covariance”, which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “Determining a motion/presence of an object based on a determined covariance” is considered to be a mathematical concept because it is based off of a mathematical calculation.
Step 2a, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): processing circuitry; and a radar sensor. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 and 6-12 further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1. Accordingly claim(s) 13-15 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim 13 further recites the additional elements of a radar sensor configured to emit a radio frequency signal into a field of view and measure a plurality of chirps based on a received reflection of the radio frequency signal; and a processing system. These additional elements alone or in combination do no more generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor does it render the claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further recite the additional element(s) at least one processor; and at least one memory with instructions; claim 15 further recites a DSP, an ASIC, a microcontroller, or an FPGA. The additional elements alone or in combination do no more generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor does it render the claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1 and 6-7, respectively. Accordingly claim(s) 17 and 19-20 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1--2, 4--8, 13--15, 17--20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1), hereinafter Roh.
Regarding claim 1, Roh discloses
An apparatus comprising processing circuitry (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013] and see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]) configured to:
determine a covariance (see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”) of a plurality of chirps (see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]) measured by a radar sensor (see Fig. 1, radar system 100, further see paragraph [0013]); and
determine at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view of the radar sensor based on the determined covariance (see paragraph [0039], “Once a set of objects have been located, their location within the range-azimuth spectrum matrix are provided to a Doppler processing element 214.”, and see paragraph [0041], “It will be appreciated from Eq. 5 that the beam forming weight vector Wni(Ꙩmi) is dependent on the spatial covariance estimate for the particular range bin.”).
Regarding claim 2, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance of at most four chirps of the plurality of chirps (see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]; Examiner’s Note: It is noted that by definition the term ‘plurality’ includes ‘at most four’.).
Regarding claim 4, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine an average of at least two chirps of the plurality of chirps, and determine the covariance by determining a covariance of the average and a further chirp of the plurality of chirps (see paragraph [0015], “…the set of range bin values is determined by averaging a set of signal samples from the beat signal for the chirp…”).
Regarding claim 5, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modify the plurality of chirps by attenuating an offset of the plurality of chirps and determine the covariance by determining a covariance of the modified plurality of chirps (see paragraph [0015], “In one implementation, the set of range bin values is determined by averaging a set of signal samples from the beat signal for the chirp to provide a DC component and subtracting the DC component from each sample to provide a set of DC-compensated samples”; Examiner’s Note: It is noted that in the paragraph [0049] of the claimed invention the definition of “attenuate the offset” mentions “Mean removal may be the process of removing a mean value, e.g., a DC (direct current) component or a constant offset, from the radar data 130, e.g., from the ADC samples values of the plurality of chirps. For instance, the processing circuitry 120 may apply zero padding, mean subtraction, median filtering, or a window function to the radar data 130 to attenuate the offset.” ).
Regarding claim 6, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of chirps are from a plurality of channels of the radar sensor (see Fig. 3, element 308, further see paragraph [0043], and see Fig. 4, element 402, further see paragraph [0047]; Examiner’s Note: It is noted that the paragraph [0050] of the claimed invention mentions “…it may comprise a plurality of channels (antennas) to transmit…” so it is interpreted that the inventors are using terms ‘channels’ and ‘antennas’ interchangeably.), and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a combined set of chirps by combining the plurality of chirps over the plurality of channels and determine the covariance by determining a covariance of the combined set of chirps (see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”).
Regarding claim 7, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance based on a range representation of the plurality of chirps (see Fig. 3, element 310, further see paragraph [0043], see Fig. 4, element 408, further see paragraph [0047], and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”).
Regarding claim 8, Roh further discloses
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: select a predefined number of range bins of the range representation; and determine the covariance by determining a covariance of the selected predefined number of range bins (see Fig. 3, element 310, further see paragraph [0043], see Fig. 4, element 408, further see paragraph [0047], and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”; Examiner’s Note: It is noted that selecting ‘all’ range bins includes ‘predefined’ number of range bins.).
Regarding claim 13, Roh further discloses
A radar system (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013], “Fig. 1 illustrates a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar system 100.”), comprising:
A radar sensor configured to emit a radio frequency signal into a field of view and measure a plurality of chirps based on a received reflection of the radio frequency signal (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013]); and
a processing system (see Fig. 2, element 200, further see paragraph [0018], “Fig. 2 illustrates one example of a signal processing component 200 for processing frequency-modulated radar signals.”, further see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]) configured to:
determine a covariance of the plurality of chirps measured by the radar sensor (see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”, further see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]), and determine at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within the field of view of the radar sensor based on the determined covariance (see paragraph [0039], “Once a set of objects have been located, their location within the range-azimuth spectrum matrix are provided to a Doppler processing element 214.”, and see paragraph [0041], “It will be appreciated from Eq. 5 that the beam forming weight vector Wni(Ꙩmi) is dependent on the spatial covariance estimate for the particular range bin.”).
Regarding claim 14, Roh further discloses
The radar system of claim 13, wherein the processing system (see Fig. 2, element 200, further see paragraph [0018], “Fig. 2 illustrates one example of a signal processing component 200 for processing frequency-modulated radar signals.”, further see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]) comprises:
at least one processor (see Fig. 5, element 504, further see paragraphs [0052-0053], “The system 500 can includes a system bus 502, a processing unit 504, a system memory...”); and
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (see Fig. 5, elements 506, 508, 510, further see paragraphs [0052] and [0054], “The additional memory devices 506, 508 and 510 can store data, programs, instructions, …”), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor enable the radar system to determine the covariance of the plurality of chirps and to determine at least one of the motion and the presence of the object within the field of view of the radar sensor (the same cited section and rationale as claim 13 is applied).
Regarding claim 15, Roh further discloses
The radar system of claim 13, wherein the processing system comprises at least one of a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a microcontroller, or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (see Fig. 5, element 504, further see paragraph [0053], “The processing unit 504 can be a computing device and can include an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).”).
Regarding claims 17-20,
Claims 17-20 are directed to a method. Claims 17-20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1 and 5-7 which are directed towards an apparatus. Claims 17-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 5-7, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of SHIN et al. (WO 2022060369), hereinafter Shin.
Claim 3 --
Roh teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Roh does not further disclose the system:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a covariance of at least two chirps of the plurality of chirps of one burst or at least two chirps of the plurality of chirps of different bursts.
While Roh does not disclose all the features listed above, Roh does disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a covariance of at least two chirps of the plurality of chirps (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013] and see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]; see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”; see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]). Shin rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by teaching the plurality of chirps of one burst or the plurality of chirps of different bursts (see paragraphs [0003-0005], “…The device may comprise a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps…”, and “…multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps…” of Shin).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Shin into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking. Roh discloses in paragraph [0013], “…it will be appreciated that the system 100 can utilize any appropriate signal in which the frequency varies with time in known fashion.”, further Roh also discloses in paragraph [0013], “The transmitter 102 can provide the chirp signals in sets, referred to as frames.” Therefore, the radar system in Roh can generate bursts but Roh fails to explicitly disclose it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of determining a covariance of at least two chirps of the plurality of chirps as disclosed by Roh by incorporating burst signals in the process as taught by Shin. The combination of Shin and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to perform various applications of a radar system using both -- burst and continuous -- modes (see paragraph [0003] of Shin).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Zheng et al. ("Hand gesture Recognition Based-on Range-Doppler-Angle Trajectory and LSTM network Using an MIMO radar", Eleventh International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 11384, 113840P, December 2019, 11 pages.), hereinafter Zheng.
Claim 9 –
Roh teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as described above.
Roh does not further discloses a system:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a plurality of covariance values for the predefined number of range bins and determining a maximum of the covariance values.
While Roh does not disclose all the features listed above, Roh does disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a plurality of covariance values for the predefined number of range bins (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013] and see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]; see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph 0025, “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”; see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]; see Fig. 3, element 310, further see paragraph [0043], see Fig. 4, element 408, further see paragraph 0047). Zheng teaches, determining a maximum of the covariance values (see page 5, section 3.1.3, Equation 16 and related text, “…apply the singular value decomposition (SVD) to the covariance matrix…” and “…diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries contain the Ntargets largest eigenvalues…” of Zheng).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zheng into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking. Roh discloses in paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin …”. Therefore, Roh estimates covariance but does not estimate maximum covariance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of determining a covariance for each of the plurality of range bins as disclosed by Roh by incorporating a method to compute a maximum of covariance values as taught by Zheng. The combination of Zheng and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine angular spectrum via covariance-based algorithm such as a multiple signal classification (MUSIC) algorithm (see page 5, section 3.1.3, paragraph 1 and last paragraph of Zheng).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Iwakura et al. ("An Efficient Sliding Window Processing for the Covariance Matrix Estimation", International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, Session No. 2C15, October 27, 2008, 4 pages.), hereinafter Iwakura.
Claim 10 --
Roh teaches the apparatus of claim 7 as described above.
Roh does not further discloses a system:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a respective covariance for each of a plurality of range bins of the range representation by applying a sliding window on the plurality of range bins.
While Roh does not disclose all the features listed above, Roh does disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance by determining a respective covariance for each of a plurality of range bins of the range representation (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013] and see Fig. 5, element 500, further see paragraphs [0051-0052]; see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”; see Fig. 3, element 302, further see paragraph [0043]; see Fig. 3, element 310, further see paragraph [0043], see Fig. 4, element 408, further see paragraph [0047]). Iwakura teaches, determining a covariance by applying a sliding window on the plurality of range bins (see Fig. 2, see further 1st paragraph on page 2, “Figure 2 shows the concept of covariance matrix estimations with the conventional sliding window method.” of Iwakura).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Iwakura into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking. Roh discloses in paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin …”. Therefore, Roh estimates covariance but does not apply sliding window approach. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of determining a covariance for each of the plurality of range bins as disclosed by Roh by incorporating a sliding window method as taught by Iwakura. The combination of Iwakura and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve target detection accuracy in radar systems (see paragraph 1, page 1 of Iwakura).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Dahl et al. (US 2016/0084948 A1), hereinafter Dahl.
Claim 11 --
Roh teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Roh does not further disclose the system:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to normalize the covariance and determine the at least one of the motion and the presence of the object based on the normalized covariance
While Roh does not disclose all the features listed above, Roh does disclose determining the at least one of the motion and the presence of the object based on the determined covariance (see paragraph [0039], “Once a set of objects have been located, their location within the range-azimuth spectrum matrix are provided to a Doppler processing element 214.”, and see paragraph [0041], “It will be appreciated from Eq. 5 that the beam forming weight vector Wni(Ꙩmi) is dependent on the spatial covariance estimate for the particular range bin.”). Dahl rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by teaching normalization of covariance (see paragraphs [0010] and [0046], “In some embodiments, extracting coherence information from the plurality of filtered signals includes computing correlation coefficients, covariance normalization, cross correlation coefficients…” of Dahl).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Dahl into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose statistical measure such as covariance. Roh discloses in paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin …”. Therefore, Roh estimates covariance but does not apply normalization approach. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of determining the at least one of the motion and the presence of the object based on the determined covariance as disclosed by Roh by incorporating the normalization method as taught by Dahl. The combination of Dahl and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use any suitable statistical technique for data analysis, including computing correlation coefficients, covariance normalization, cross correlation coefficients and/or cosine of phase differences. (see paragraph [0046] of Dahl).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Zheng et al. ("Hand gesture Recognition Based-on Range-Doppler-Angle Trajectory and LSTM network Using an MIMO radar", Eleventh International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 11384, 113840P, December 2019, 11 pages.), hereinafter Zheng.
Claim 12 --
Roh teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as described above.
Roh does not further disclose the system:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to normalize the covariance by applying a softmax function on the covariance.
While Roh does not disclose all the features listed above, Roh does disclose processing circuitry is configured to determine the covariance (see paragraph [0017], “The signal processor 106 also determines an angular spectrum for each range bin using the sample values in the clutter corrected signal. In practice, the angular spectrum can be determined via application of a covariance-based direction-of-arrival determination algorithm…” and see paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin…”). Zheng teaches, applying softmax function to the radar data (see page 6, section 3.2, paragraph 2 and text related to Equation 30 of Zheng).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zheng into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking. Roh discloses in paragraph [0025], “The DoA component 210 first estimates a spatial covariance for each range bin …”. Therefore, Roh estimates covariance but does not apply softmax function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of determining a covariance as disclosed by Roh by incorporating a softmax function as taught by Zheng. The combination of Zheng and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to perform radar classification tasks such as target recognition, gesture detection, or signal type classification (see last paragraph, section 3.2 of Zheng).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Hur et al. (US 2022/0413094 A1), hereinafter Hur.
Claim 16 --
Roh further discloses a system:
An electronic device (see Fig. 2, further see paragraph [0018]), comprising: the radar system of claim 13; (see Fig. 1, element 100, further see paragraph [0013], “Fig. 1 illustrates a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar system 100.”)
However, Roh does not explicitly disclose:
control circuitry configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object
Hur teaches, control circuitry configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object
(see Fig. 1, further see paragraphs [0019], [0021-0024], [0051] of Hur).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hur into the invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking. Roh implicitly discloses in paragraph [0002], “…can be used in continuous wave radar and is used, for example, in vehicle applications such as adaptive cruise control (ACC), emergency braking, pedestrian detection…”. Therefore, Roh mentions implicit use of such a system but fails to explicitly disclose it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify an electronic device as disclosed by Roh by incorporating a control circuitry as taught by Hur. The combination of Hur and Roh would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to perform spatial ranging operations in which radio-frequency signals are used to estimate a distance between the electronic device and external objects (see paragraph [0003] of Hur).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMISH P. HATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8.30 am to 5.30 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270 7792. 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.
/NIMISH P. HATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648