Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/591,789

RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
CROSS, JULIANA MARIA
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
82 granted / 100 resolved
+30.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
127
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 100 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan. Regarding claim 1, US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan teaches: A radar signal processing method based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), the method comprising: transmitting an OFDM transmission signal to at least one target; (Fig. 6; [0070-71] – “An OFDM generation device 54 generates digital OFDM symbols… Phase modulator 18 encodes the signal for each transmitting antenna 10… the encoded signals are emitted via transmitting antennas 10”) receiving an analog reception signal reflected from the at least one target; (Fig. 6; [0071-72] – “Received signal 32′ contains a sum of OFDM symbols that are delayed due to the signal propagation time and Doppler-shifted due to the relative speed of radar objects 28.”) converting the analog reception signal into a digital reception signal; (Fig. 6; [0073] – “received signals of a particular code instance that are downmixed with the signal of HF oscillator 14 at mixer 34 and digitized by A/D converter 36.”) obtaining a first velocity of the at least one target based on the digital reception signal; ([0073] – “the sequence of successive code blocks 26, in order to obtain an ambiguous speed spectrum in the particular dimension. The evaluation of the obtained two-dimensional distance-speed spectrum with ambiguity of the speed is then carried out by object detection device 42 corresponding to the example in FIGS. 2 and 3,” [0057] – “computes an estimated value of periodically ambiguous speed v.sub.amb, corresponding to an estimation of the Doppler shift of the signals (step S24). The radar system is designed for a speed measuring range that exceeds width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range, and which can be, for example, a multiple width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range. Actual speed v of the radar object within the speed measuring range for which the radar system is designed can be equal to v.sub.amb, or can differ from v.sub.amb by an integer multiple of v.sub.u, corresponding, for example, to one of the values v.sub.amb−v.sub.u, v.sub.amb, v.sub.amb v.sub.u, v.sub.amb+2 v.sub.u.” First velocity may correspond to any velocity ambiguity hypothesis) and processing the digital reception signal based on the first velocity to obtain a recovery signal having reduced inter-channel interference. ([0073] – “the further processing in processing branches 44 for the particular ambiguity hypotheses is carried out.” [0058-60] – “Based on ambiguous speed estimation v.sub.amb, further processing of the signals now takes place in different processing branches 44 for different ambiguity hypotheses, in each case assuming a Doppler shift corresponding to the “actual” speed of radar object 28 that results for the particular ambiguity hypothesis… The Doppler shift-compensated signals of the code instances are decoded by a decoder 48 (step S32) by multiplying the signal vector by a decoding matrix. The result of the decoding is a vector of the signal components associated with the different transmitting antennas 10.”) Regarding claim(s) 13 and 19, Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are apparatus / computer-readable non-transitory storage medium claims corresponding to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 13 and 19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (US 20200182991 A1 to Hakobyan; US 20220334240 A1 to Wu; US 12498459 B2 to Akamine; US 20220187438 A1 to Overdevest) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20. See analysis regarding claim 2 below. Claim(s) 14 and 20 recite similar limitation(s) to claim 2 and is/are indicated as allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Dependent claims indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims. Regarding claim 2, Hakobyan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hakobyan further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the first velocity comprises: obtaining a plurality of velocity candidates; ([0073] – “the sequence of successive code blocks 26, in order to obtain an ambiguous speed spectrum in the particular dimension. The evaluation of the obtained two-dimensional distance-speed spectrum with ambiguity of the speed is then carried out by object detection device 42 corresponding to the example in FIGS. 2 and 3,” [0057] – “computes an estimated value of periodically ambiguous speed v.sub.amb, corresponding to an estimation of the Doppler shift of the signals (step S24). The radar system is designed for a speed measuring range that exceeds width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range, and which can be, for example, a multiple width v.sub.u of the uniqueness range. Actual speed v of the radar object within the speed measuring range for which the radar system is designed can be equal to v.sub.amb, or can differ from v.sub.amb by an integer multiple of v.sub.u, corresponding, for example, to one of the values v.sub.amb−v.sub.u, v.sub.amb, v.sub.amb v.sub.u, v.sub.amb+2 v.sub.u.”) Hakobyan does not teach the additional elements of the claim. US 20220334240 A1 to Wu teaches: obtaining a plurality of velocity candidates; (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4-5; [0021-23] – “for each transmitter the modulo-2π spectrums are unfolded into multiple ±2π extent (for example ±4π, ±6π, ±8π, . . . ).” Velocity candidates correspond to velocity at Doppler spectrum peak for each multiple ±2π extent, i.e., for each graph of Fig. 3B) obtaining a plurality ofvelocity spectrum candidates corresponding to the plurality of velocity candidates; (Fig. 3B) detecting peak values of the plurality of distance velocity map candidates; and (Fig. 3B [0020-24] – “spectral peak”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wu’s known technique to Hakobyan’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Hakobyan teaches a base method of determining Doppler alias hypotheses and processing signals based on a hypothesis prior to choosing a correct hypothesis; (2) Wu teaches a specific technique of determining Doppler hypotheses and choosing a correct hypothesis based on a spectrogram of each hypothesis prior to continuing processing with a the chosen Doppler and associated compensations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). The prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim: obtaining a plurality of distance velocity map candidates corresponding to the plurality of velocity candidates; detecting peak values of the plurality of distance velocity map candidates; and obtaining the first velocity as a first velocity candidate corresponding to a largest peak value among the peak values, the first velocity candidate being among the plurality of velocity candidates. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time. 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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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. /JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Feb 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12535558
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING A CLASSIFICATION FOR AN OBJECT BASED ON A RADAR SPECTRUM AND RADAR REFLECTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529778
NR-LIGHT USER EQUIPMENT BASED POSITIONING WITH ROUND TRIP TIME PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12498459
RADAR APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12487322
DEVICE AND METHOD WITH RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12481055
STATIC HUMAN POSE ESTIMATION METHOD BASED ON CSI SIGNAL ANGLE OF ARRIVAL ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 100 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month