DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in PCT JP 2021141578 on 08/31/2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yomo (US 20230080655) in view of Dvorecki (US 20240053467).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, Yomo teaches the following limitations:
A vehicle radar apparatus that is mounted to a vehicle and detects a target object in a vicinity of an own vehicle, the vehicle radar apparatus comprising: (Yomo - [0032] The present disclosure relates to, for example, a radar apparatus using a radio signal in a millimeter-wave band, and a technique for preventing a reflective object present outside of a viewing angle covering a detection target area from being detected inside of the viewing angle as a false image due to an effect of multipath caused by a reflective object (e.g., mirror reflective object) present inside of the viewing angle. It is assumed that the radar apparatus of the present disclosure is fixedly installed as a road light installed on the roadside and an infrastructure to monitor unauthorized entry, for example. The present disclosure is not limited thereto, however, and may be applied to a radar apparatus mounted on a moving object such as a vehicle.)
at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the vehicle radar apparatus to: (Yomo - [0058] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary configuration of the radar apparatus according to the present embodiment. The system in FIG. 6 is composed of antenna 601, radar signal processor 602, main reflective object detector 603, area specifier 608, in-area determiner 609, auxiliary reflective object detector 610, shadowing determiner 611, and classification processor 612. [0062] main reflective object detector 603 compares the state of the reflection detected by radar signal processor 602 with the stored mirror reflective object patterns, [0069] In this case, shadowing determiner 611 inputs a ghost determination signal indicating that the determination target is a ghost to classification processor 612, and classification processor 612 need not input the determination result to the warning determiner. Alternatively, shadowing determiner 611 may output, to the warning determiner (not illustrated), a warning signal indicating the presence of a reflective object that is possibly a ghost. [0159] Although the present disclosure has been described using configurations of hardware as examples, the present disclosure can be realized by software in cooperation with hardware.)
(Claim 9) a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and a set of computer-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium that, when read and executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement: (Yomo – [0058], [0062], [0069], [0159] Yomo does not explicitly teach “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.)
detect a position and a velocity of the target object by transmitting a radar wave to the vicinity of the own vehicle, (Yomo - [0032], [0060] Radar signal processor 602 detects the position, velocity, strength, etc. of a determination target from the reflected radio wave received at antenna 601.)
receiving a reflected wave of the radar wave, and (Yomo - [0050] The signal level of the reflected wave as a direct wave from real reflective object 303 received by radar apparatus 101 is higher than the signal level of the reflected wave of ghost reflective object 203 illustrated in FIG. 2.)
performing frequency analysis on transmission and reception signals; (Yomo - [0050], [0062] Yomo does not explicitly teach “frequency analysis”.)
select, as a relay reflection target object, a moving body that is capable of relaying transmission and reception of the radar wave to and from another target object, from a plurality of target objects detected by the vehicle radar apparatus; (Yomo – [Fig. 1], [Fig. 21] plurality, [0032], [0050], [0038] FIG. 1 illustrates radar apparatus 101, real reflective object 102, which is an existing object in detection area 108 of radar apparatus 101, ghost reflective object 103, which is a ghost, mirror reflective object 104 present in detection area 108 of radar apparatus 101, multipath reflection point 105, direct wave route (solid line) 106, multipath routes (dashed lines) 107a and 107b, and detection area (dashed and dotted line) 108. [0062] In pre-measurement, main reflective object detector 603 determines whether candidates for mirror reflective object 204 have been detected from the state of reflection detected by radar signal processor 602)
set a multipath ghost condition that indicates the position and the velocity of the target object erroneously detected by the vehicle radar apparatus as a result of a stationary object to which the radar wave is relayed by the relay reflection target object, based on the position and the velocity of the relay reflection target object and a velocity of the own vehicle; and (Yomo - [0032], [0060], [0062], [0004] One non-limiting and exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure facilitates providing a system capable of preventing false detection of a ghost by distinguishing between a real reflective object and a ghost caused by multipath resulting from reflection by a reflective object. [0061] Classification processor 612 assigns individual identification numbers (IDs) to detected objects for point cloud data detected and outputted by radar signal processor 602, and selects, from the detected objects to which the IDs are assigned, a detected object corresponding to a ghost determination signal inputted from shadowing determiner 611. Note that classification processor 612 does not output a warning signal or outputs a warning signal indicating a possibility of ghosting to a warning determiner (not illustrated) in accordance with the inputted ghost determination signal. [0132] map generator 2101, for example, subtracts the movement vector that is based on the moving path of radar apparatus 101b, and performs processing such that a reflection point from the same stationary object is overwritten on the same coordinates at each point in time.)
extract a target object that meets the multipath ghost condition from the plurality of target objects detected by the vehicle radar apparatus, determine that the extracted target object is a multipath ghost, and restrict output of a detection result from the vehicle radar apparatus to an external apparatus. (Yomo - [0032], [0060-0062], [0063] area specifier 608 extracts a warning target area in the ghosting area where ghosting possibly occurs by a real reflective object outside the detection area, based on the geometric positional relationship between mirror reflective object 204 and radar apparatus 101 (step S703). [0068] When auxiliary reflective object detector 610 detects a real reflective object, shadowing determiner 611 observes temporal variations for the received reflected wave from the real reflective object (step S705), and determines whether shadowing occurs (step S706). [0069] When shadowing determiner 611 determines that the variation in the signal level is equal to or less than a predetermined value and no shadowing occurs (step S706: No), the determination target is considered to be a ghost,)
Yomo does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Dvorecki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
frequency analysis (Dvorecki – [0735] wherein the processor is configured to transform the digital Rx signal into a frequency-domain radar Rx signal in a frequency-domain, to determine cross-correlation (XCORR) data corresponding to a plurality of Doppler values)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar apparatus of Yomo with the frequency-domain radar Rx signal of Dvorecki in order to perform a Doppler Fast Fourier Transform used to extract velocity information (Dvorecki – [0140]).
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Dvorecki – [0698] one or more tangible computer-readable (“machine-readable”) non-transitory storage media 2602, which may include computer-executable instructions, e.g., implemented by logic 2604, operable to, when executed by at least one computer processor, enable the at least one computer processor to implement one or more operations and/or functionalities)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processing of Yomo with the non-transitory storage media of Dvorecki in order to enable the at least one computer processor to implement one or more operations and/or functionalities (Dvorecki – [0698]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yomo further teaches:
wherein: the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle radar apparatus to: (Yomo – [0058], [0062], [0069], [0159])
periodically repeatedly perform a detection operation of the target object; and (Yomo – [Fig. 7], [0032], [0060-0063], [0068-0069])
in response to the target object that meets the multipath ghost condition being extracted a plurality of times from the plurality of target objects detected by the vehicle radar apparatus, determine that the target object that is extracted a plurality of times is the multipath ghost. (Yomo – [Fig. 7], [0032], [0060-0063], [0068-0069])
Regarding Claims 3-4, Yomo further teaches:
wherein: the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle radar apparatus to: (Yomo – [0058], [0062], [0069], [0159])
estimate a velocity of the multipath ghost based on the azimuth and the velocity of the relay reflection target object and the velocity of the own vehicle, and (Yomo – [0032], [0060-0063], [0068-0069], [0086] In a case where radar apparatus 101 to be used is capable of performing two-dimensional (azimuth angle and elevation angle) angle measurement, area specifier 608 determines reflection direction “a” of a wave inputted from radar apparatus 101 to mirror reflective object 1002 at point 1205 where line 1202 connecting the center of square 1201 and radar apparatus 101 intersects with mirror reflective object 1002.)
set the multipath ghost condition based on the estimated multipath ghost velocity, and an azimuth and a distance of the relay reflection target object. (Yomo – [0068-0069], [0086])
Regarding Claims 5-8, Yomo further teaches:
wherein: the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle radar apparatus to: (Yomo – [0058], [0062], [0069], [0159])
attach information indicating that the target object is the multipath ghost to the target object that is determined to be the multipath ghost among the plurality of target objects detected by the vehicle radar apparatus, and (Yomo – [0061], [0068-0069])
output the detection result of the target object from the vehicle radar apparatus to the external apparatus. (Yomo – [0061])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Page 6, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered. The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been removed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see pages 8-9, that “Yomo Does Not Teach or Suggest "a Relay Reflection Target Object (moving and/or stationary)”” due to the cited objects not mapping to “a moving body”. The examiner disagrees, Yomo [0060] states “Radar signal processor 602 detects the position, velocity, strength, etc. of a determination target” and the determination target is then classified according to Yomo [0061]. Yomo [0132] states that each of these radar signal processing results may also be stationary.
Applicant argues, see pages 9-10, that “Yomo Does Not Teach or Suggest the "Multipath Ghost Condition” or “Meets the Multipath Ghost Condition”. The examiner disagrees, Yomo [0061] states “Classification processor 612 assigns individual identification numbers (IDs) to detected objects for point cloud data detected and outputted by radar signal processor 602, and selects, from the detected objects to which the IDs are assigned, a detected object corresponding to a ghost determination signal inputted from shadowing determiner 611”. Further, Yomo [0004] clarifies the meaning of “ghost” and “false detection” and their relation to the term “multipath”.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Yomo in view of Dvorecki teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights