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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 9 June 2026.
Claims 1, 13, 17 have been amended.
Claims 21, 22 are newly added.
Claims 1-22 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 07/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 13-15, 17-20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Lee (US 5291020 A), hereinafter Lee.
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
generate a detection signal indicating at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view of the radar sensor by applying at least one of an adaptive thresholding algorithm and a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) algorithm to the determined covariance (see paragraph [0017], “…matrix can be searched for peak values, for example, via a constant false alarm rate (CFAR)…” and further 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.”);
Roh does not disclose the limitation below. However, Lee rectifies the deficiencies of
Roh by teaching,
automatically activate or deactivate a function of an electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object (see Fig. 5, col 5, lines 32-38, “…Incrementing the counter indicates that a person entered the room. Upon entering the room, the system also resets the timer at step 224 and checks at step 226 whether the lights are on. If the lights are on, the system returns to step 206 to wait. If the lights are out, the system, at step 228, turns the lights on and returns to step 206…” of Lee).
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 Lee into the
invention of Roh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention
as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been
obvious to modify Roh such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Lee in
order to improve the method of detecting the presence of a person using sensors and switches e.g., turning on (activate) and turning off (deactivate) lights (see col 2, lines 25-55 of Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 7.
Roh further discloses
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
generate a detection signal indicating at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view of the radar sensor by applying at least one of an adaptive thresholding algorithm and a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) algorithm to the determined covariance (see paragraph [0017], “…matrix can be searched for peak values, for example, via a constant false alarm rate (CFAR)…” and further 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.”);
Roh does not disclose the limitation below. However, Lee rectifies the deficiencies of
Roh by teaching,
automatically activate or deactivate a function of an electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object (see Fig. 5, col 5, lines 32-38, “…Incrementing the counter indicates that a person entered the room. Upon entering the room, the system also resets the timer at step 224 and checks at step 226 whether the lights are on. If the lights are on, the system returns to step 206 to wait. If the lights are out, the system, at step 228, turns the lights on and returns to step 206…” of Lee).
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Roh in view of Lee is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 13.
Roh further discloses
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 in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 13.
Roh further discloses
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.
Regarding claim 21, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 13.
Roh further discloses
wherein the processing system comprises at least one of digital signal processing (DSP) hardware, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) 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)…”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Lee (US 5291020 A), and further in view of Shin et al. (WO 2022060369), hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 3, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh in view of Lee does not teach the limitation of claim 3:
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 in view of Lee. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose an electromagnetic 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 Roh in view of Lee and Shin 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 Lee (US 5291020 A), and further 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.
Regarding claim 9, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 8.
Roh in view of Lee does not teach the limitation of claim 9:
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 rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by teaching 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 in view of Lee. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose an electromagnetic 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 Roh in view of Lee and Zheng 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 Lee (US 5291020 A), and further 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.
Regarding claim 10, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 7.
Roh in view of Lee does not teach the limitation of claim 10:
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 rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by teaching 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 in view of Lee. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose an electromagnetic 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 Roh in view of Lee and Iwakura 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 Lee (US 5291020 A), and further in view of Dahl et al. (US 2016/0084948 A1), hereinafter Dahl.
Regarding claim 11, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Roh in view of Lee does not teach the limitation of claim 11:
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 in view of Lee. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose statistical measures 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 Roh in view of Lee and Dahl 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 Lee (US 5291020 A), and further 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.
Regarding claim 12, Roh in view of Lee and Dahl, as shown above, teaches claim 11.
Roh in view of Lee and Dahl does not teach the limitation of claim 12:
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 rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by 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 in view of Lee and Dahl. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose an electromagnetic 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 Roh in view of Lee, Dahl, and Zheng 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 Lee (US 5291020 A), and further in view of Hur et al. (US 2022/0413094 A1), hereinafter Hur.
Regarding claim 16, Roh in view of Lee, as shown above, teaches claim 13.
Roh further discloses,
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 rectifies the deficiencies of Roh by teaching 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 in view of Lee. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose an electromagnetic 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 Roh in view of Lee and Hur 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).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2019/0178985 A1) in view of Lee (US 5291020 A), Shin et al. (WO 2022060369), 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.), and further in view of Dahl et al. (US 2016/0084948 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Roh in view of Lee and Shin, as shown above, teaches claim 3.
Roh further discloses,
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
select a predefined number of range bins of 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…”; Examiner’s Note: It is noted that selecting ‘all’ range bins includes ‘predefined’ number of range bins.)
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)
determine the at least one of the motion and the presence of the object based on the [normalized] 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.”).
Roh does not disclose the limitation below. However, Zheng rectifies the deficiencies of
Roh by teaching,
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).
Roh does not disclose the limitation below. However, 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).
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Roh in view of Lee and Zheng as well as the teachings of Roh in view of Lee and Dahl is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claims 9 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the Specification filed on 06/09/2026 overcomes the objection to the Specification set forth in the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/09/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 13, and 17. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been removed.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/09/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 13, and 17. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been removed.
[AltContent: textbox ([G]enerate a detection signal indicating at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view of the radar sensor by applying at least one of an adaptive thresholding algorithm and a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) algorithm to the determined covariance; and automatically activate or deactivate a function of an electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object.)]Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite, inter alia:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the cited art does not teach or suggest above limitations, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains paragraph [0017] of Roh (US 2019/0178985 A1) teaches applying an adaptive threshold algorithm and CFAR algorithm to the determined covariance because the same signal is processed by the signal processor so the CFAR step is applied to the Roh’s covariance. However, Roh does not teach automatically activate or deactivate a function of an electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object. Lee (US 5291020 A) teaches automatically activate or deactivate a function of an electronic device based on the determined at least one of the motion and the presence of the object. (see Fig. 5, col 5, lines 32-38 of Lee). Therefore, the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Lee. Similarly, the independent claims 13 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Lee.
With regard to claims 2, 4-8, 14-15, 18-20, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence to claims 1, 13, and 17. As stated in the arguments above, the examiner is rejecting claims 1, 13, 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103, therefore claims 2, 4-8, 14-15, 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to claims 3, 9-12, and 16, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence to claims 1, 13, and 17. The examiner maintains the rejection of claims 3, 9-12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/09/2026 added two new claims – claim 21 and 22. The new claim 21 recites similar limitations to the existing claim 15 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Lee. The new claim 22 recite similar limitations to the existing claims 9, 11 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Lee, Shin, Zheng, and Dahl.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMISH P. HATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9508. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 8.30 am to 5.30 pm 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, 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
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights