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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP21/42352, filed on 11/18/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US 20200400813 A1) in view of Suwa (US 20130321199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi discloses [Note: what Oishi fails to disclose is strike-through]
A radar signal processing device (see pg. 1, paragraph 0014, “A radar image processing device…”) comprising:
a memory (see Fig. 10B, memory 105); and
a processor to perform, upon executing a program stored in the memory, a process (see Fig. 10B, processor 104):
to perform Fourier transform on an image signal indicating a synthetic aperture radar image in an azimuth direction (see pg. 4, paragraph 0062, “The refocusing unit 10 Fourier-transforms in the azimuth direction the radar image”; pg. 11, paragraph 0154, “A radar image processing device according to the present invention can suppress only ghost images in a radar image, and thus is applicable to SARs”);
to multiply the image signal with the false image suppression gain calculated (see pg. 7, paragraph 0103, “Note that the ghost image suppression unit 12 may multiply the value of the pixel determined to include a ghost image by a real number equal to or less than 1, may replace the value of each pixel determined to include a ghost image with the average value of values of surrounding pixels”).
Suwa discloses
to divide in a Doppler frequency domain a range Doppler frequency map indicated by a signal after the Fourier transform (see Figs. 5A and 5B, range-Doppler maps of received signals; pg. 7, paragraph 0090), and output signals indicating divided maps that are a plurality of the divided range Doppler frequency maps (see pg. 7, paragraph 0089, “FIG. 5A illustrates an output signal 51 from the block-by-block Doppler processing unit 37, indicating a signal after pulse-by-pulse range compression processing and block-by-block Doppler processing and before Doppler frequency cell-associated range migration compensation processing. Further, FIG. 5B illustrates an output signal 53 from the Doppler frequency cell-associated range migration compensation unit 38, indicating a signal after the pulse-by-pulse range compression processing, the block-by-block Doppler processing, and the Doppler frequency cell-associated range migration compensation processing.”);
to perform inverse Fourier transform on signals indicating the divided maps output, and output divided playback signals that are signals after the inverse Fourier transform (see Fig. 4, IFFT unit 35d; Fig. 6, IFFT unit 38d; pg. 8, paragraph 0100, “Next, the IFFT unit 38d executes inverse Fourier transform processing by the IFFT on a signal Y.sub.h(f, f.sub.dm) (breve) obtained as a result of Expression (33) as expressed by the following Expression (34), to thereby obtain the signal y.sub.h(.tau., f.sub.dm) (breve) in which the range-direction movement amount expressed by the above-mentioned Expression (31) is compensated.”);
to calculate a false image suppression gain for suppressing a false image of a target appearing in the synthetic aperture radar image using the divided playback signals output and the image signal (see Figs. 9, 11, and 12; pg. 11, paragraph 0132, “FIG. 12 is a schematic diagram illustrating that the false image illustrated in FIG. 11 can be suppressed by setting the blocks so that the adjacent blocks overlap each other based on the example illustrated in FIG. 9.”); and
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Suwa into the invention of Oishi. Both Oishi and Suwa are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar devices and methods for target detection. Oishi discloses the device structure, a Fourier transform of an image in the azimuth direction, and multiplying the image signal by a calculated false image suppression gain; however, Oishi fails to disclose dividing a range Doppler frequency map, performing an inverse Fourier transform on the divided maps’ signals, and calculating a false image suppression gain. These features are disclosed by Suwa where the image processing method includes dividing range Doppler maps, performing an inverse Fourier on the divided map signals, and calculating a false image suppression gain with the signals from the inverse Fourier. The combination of Oishi and Suwa would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to process the radar image signals while reducing the presence of false images, creating a more accurate image for target detection.
Regarding claim 6, Oishi further discloses
The radar signal processing device according to claim 1, the process further comprising:
to acquire, from a receiver, reception data of a reflected wave from a target (see Fig. 1, storage unit 2; pg. 2, paragraph 0029, “The first storage unit 2 stores radar images. A radar (not illustrated) emits a radio wave toward an observation target area and receives the radio wave reflected at the observation target area. The radar generates a radar image of the observation target area on the basis of the reception signal of the radio wave.”), and insert a signal of 0 in a hit direction of the reception data; and
to play back the synthetic aperture radar image from the reception data after the insertion of the signal of 0, and output the image signal indicating the synthetic aperture radar image (see pg. 4, paragraph 0059, “The refocusing unit 10 sequentially generates images focused on an imaging area that corresponds to M and N by changing the values of the candidates for the number of foldings M and N that are set by the ghost image determination unit 11. Here, both the values of M and N may be changed. Alternatively, for example, the value of M may be fixed at 0 while only the value of N is changed, or the value of N may be fixed at 0 while only the value of M is changed.”).
Regarding claim 7, Suwa further discloses
The radar signal processing device according to claim 6, wherein the process performs range cell migration correction on each of a true image and a false image of the target that appear in the synthetic aperture radar image (see Figs. 5A and 5B; pg. 2, paragraph 0025, “FIGS. 5A and 5B are explanatory diagrams illustrating processing performed by a Doppler frequency cell-associated range migration compensation unit”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Suwa into the invention of Oishi. Oishi discloses the limitations of claim 6; however, Oishi fails to disclose performing range cell migration on true and false images. This feature is disclosed by Suwa where the image processing method and device include a cell-associated range migration unit that can perform range cell migration on the received radar data. The combination of Oishi and Suwa would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the ease and efficiency of signal processing by correcting “the movement between the range cells and extend a time that can be integrated” (see Suwa pg. 1, paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 8, the same cited sections and rationale for claim 1 are applied. The only difference between claim 1 and claim 8 is that claim 1 refers to an apparatus while claim 8 refers to a method. The examiner considers Oishi pg. 1, paragraph 0002 (“The present invention relates to a radar image processing device and a radar image processing method for suppressing a ghost image in a radar image”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 1 and 8 are applied. Oishi further discloses
A target observation system (see Figs. 1 and 8) comprising:
a receiver to perform reception processing on a reflected wave from a target, and output reception data of the reflected wave (see Fig. 1, storage unit 2; pg. 2, paragraph 0029, “The first storage unit 2 stores radar images. A radar (not illustrated) emits a radio wave toward an observation target area and receives the radio wave reflected at the observation target area. The radar generates a radar image of the observation target area on the basis of the reception signal of the radio wave.”);
to play back a synthetic aperture radar image from the reception data output from the receiver, and output an image signal indicating the synthetic aperture radar image (see Figs. 1 and 8, radar image processing devices);
Regarding claim 10, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 6 are applied.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US 20200400813 A1) in view of Suwa (US 20130321199 A1) and further in view of Kirscht (US 6952178 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Kirscht discloses
The radar signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the process includes
to specify in an image each set of pixels taking a same pixel position in the image, and select an intensity minimum pixel that is a pixel whose intensity is minimum among a plurality of pixels included in each set, the image being indicated by each of a plurality of the divided playback signals output (see col. 5, lines 35-39, “After the examination of these criteria for a starting pixel, the same steps are repeated for the other starting pixels of the same intensity, and are subsequently repeated for those with a lower intensity until the intensity threshold value has been reached.”; col. 2, lines 41-44, “After generating the sequence, candidates for moving objects are detected in the single-look SAR images by searching for regions with a course of intensity that deviates with respect to the environment.”), and
to specify a pixel taking the same pixel position in the image as that of each intensity minimum pixel selected among a plurality of pixels included in the synthetic aperture radar image, divide an intensity of each intensity minimum pixel by an intensity of each specified pixel, and output a division result of the intensity as the false image suppression gain (see col. 6, lines 8-25, position of pixels for measuring displacement vectors; col. 12, lines 25-43, using division with the intensity component and outputting a result).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kirscht into the inventions of Oishi and Suwa. Oishi, Suwa, and Kirscht are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar methods of detecting objects. Oishi and Suwa disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, Oishi and Suwa fail to disclose obtaining a pixel minimum intensity and obtaining a division result of the pixel intensity. These features are disclosed by Kirscht where the intensity of the image pixels can be examined and divided to output a result. The combination of Oishi, Suwa, and Kirscht would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to analyze SAR image data in a quantitative way to improve object detection via analysis of image pixel intensity.
Regarding claim 4, Oishi further discloses
The radar signal processing device according to claim 2, wherein the process performs moving average processing on the division result of the intensity, and outputs a division result after the moving average processing as the false image suppression gain (see pg. 5, paragraph 0076, “The moving average unit 14 inputs the radar image in which the pixel amplitude has been normalized by the normalization unit 13 and the focus thereof has been changed by the refocusing unit 10 in the above-described procedure, and generates an image obtained by applying a moving average of pixels of the input radar image”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 3 and 5 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 3 and 5. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole.
Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claims 3 and 5 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648