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 1-7 pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “radar sensor further comprises an internal evaluation stage” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a physical sensor may comprise an “internal evaluation stage.” The term “external hardware accelerator” further renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., to what the hardware accelerator is external. If the hardware accelerator is meant to be external to the radar sensor, it is unclear how the radar sensor may “further comprise… an external hardware accelerator.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210325510 A1 to Bialer in view of EP 3588128 A1 to Gonzalez Huici.
Regarding claim 1,
Bialer teaches:
A method for angle estimation based on signals, transmitted and received after reflection on an object, of a radar sensor with angular resolution in at least one dimension, the radar sensor including a MIMO-enabled antenna array with at least three transmitting antennas and at least three receiving antennas, (Fig. 1; [0030] – “The exemplary MIMO radar system 110 is shown with transmit elements 105a through 105n (generally referred to as 105) and receive elements 115a through 115m (generally referred to as 115).” [0040] – “exemplary case with three transmit elements 105 and three receive elements 115”) the method comprising:
estimating a location (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) of a radar target ([0048-49] – “if the ratio exceeds the ratio threshold T.sub.h.sup.R, the farther object 120.sup.f is eliminated as a ghost, at block 350… once the detection stages at blocks 305 and 325 are completed, the controller 140 may initiate a semi-autonomous or autonomous action for the vehicle 100 based on the detected objects 120 at block 250.” [0036] – “At block 250, the controller 140 of the vehicle 100 may initiate semi-autonomous or autonomous operation of the vehicle 100 based on the location of objects 120 detected at block 240.”) using a cross-path model, (Figs. 1, 3; [0041] – “perform detection with multipath reflection 130b elimination according to one or more embodiments.” [0045] – “in FIG. 1, the real object 120a that reflects some energy to object 120b and, thus, results in the detection of a ghost object 120c will be closer in range than the ghost object 120c. Thus, the test at block 325 considers the objects 120 that were detected at block 305 one pair at a time based on their ranges.” [0048] – “if the farther object 120.sup.f is a ghost, then the numerator is a larger result than the denominator and the ratio may exceed the ratio threshold T.sub.h.sup.R. If the farther object 120.sup.f is real, then the denominator is a larger result than the numerator and the ratio will likely not exceed the ratio threshold T.sub.h.sup.R. Thus, if the ratio exceeds the ratio threshold T.sub.h.sup.R, the farther object 120.sup.f is eliminated as a ghost, at block 350.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cross-path” in light of the specification includes multipath. See, e.g., instant application Summary (pg. 4, lines 20-22) “An object of the present invention is to make possible a robust, unambiguous and efficient MIMO angle estimation (in azimuth and/or in elevation) even in multipath propagation.” Further, while instant application specification Background (pg. 2, lines 9-26) states “signal models representing this [4-path] scenario are called cross-path models,” it does not exclude other multipath (e.g., 3-path) scenarios from also being called cross-path models.) in doing so, a necessary transmit-side and receive-side beamforming operation is approximately calculated (Eqs. 1-4; [0038-40] – “To generate the beamforming matrix A, one set of synthetic arrays relates to the receive elements 115… Another set of synthetic arrays relates to the transmit elements 105… The transmit and receive array responses may be combined… the beamforming matrix A for every θ.sub.TX and θ.sub.RX pair” [0046] – “ At block 340, for each pair of a closer object 120.sup.c, denoted by superscript “c,” and a farther object 120.sup.f, denoted by superscript “f,” a ratio of beamforming results is calculated. Specifically, a ratio of beamforming results is obtained using subsets of the beamforming matrix A and the vector x.sup.f) corresponding with the farther object 120 of the pair.”) using a fast Fourier transform. ([0035] – “At block 220, a second FFT (referred to as a Doppler FFT) is performed on the range FFT result (at block 210)… the end result of the two FFTs is still the same number of range-Doppler maps 230. This range-Doppler map 230 that indicates an intensity at each range R and Doppler D combination is the matched filter result. The intensity is a complex value and, as previously noted, the range-Doppler map 230 is obtained for each transmit element 105 and receive element 115 pair. Thus, for a MIMO radar system 110 with three transmit elements 105 and three receive elements 115, nine range-Doppler maps 230 obtained will be obtained.” [0046] – “The vector x.sup.f used to obtain the beamforming result in both the numerator and the denominator is generated from the range R and Doppler D of the farther object 120.sup.f in all of the range-Doppler maps 230.”)
GONZALEZ HUICI teaches:
estimating a location angle of a radar target ([0012] – “radar signals are emitted to the scene and reflected radar signals from the scene are received using at least one multi-channel radar sensor which comprises a two-dimensional array of antenna elements, i.e. transmitting and receiving elements, with spatial diversity in horizontal and vertical axes, in particular including non-uniform sparse arrays. The measurement signals of the at least one radar sensor are processed to detect objects in the scene and a height and azimuth estimation of one or several detected object(s)”)
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 GONZALEZ HUICI’s known technique to Bialer’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Bialer teaches a base method of discriminating between real and ghost targets, then using locations of real targets for autonomous vehicle operation. Bialer further teaches measurements and determinations regarding angles of detected objects ([0031] – “As FIG. 1 indicates, the transmit angle θ.sub.TX of the transmit signal 125 and the receive angle θ.sub.RXa of the direct reflection 130a are similar, while the receive angle θ.sub.RXb of the multipath reflection 130b is different than the transmit angle θ.sub.TX.” [0042-49] – “at block 310, a direct path is assumed (i.e., θ.sub.TX=θ.sub.RX)… the test at block 325 considers… the transmit angle θ.sub.TX and the receive angle θ.sub.RXa are the same for a real object 120a) ; (2) GONZALEZ HUICI teaches a specific technique of determining azimuth height of detected objects from multipath signals; (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 improved 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).
Regarding claim(s) 6,
Claim(s) 6 is/are product claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 6 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210325510 A1 to Bialer in view of EP 3588128 A1 to Gonzalez Huici and further in view of “Low-Complexity Super Resolution Angle Separation for Sparse Antenna Arrays Based on Frequency Domain Maximum Likelihood” to Westhues (cited in IDS; doi: 10.1109/RadarConf2248738.2022.9764268)
Regarding claim 3,
Bialer in view of GONZALEZ HUICI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Westhues teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein gaps in a grid of the transmitting and receiving antennas are filled in using zero insertion. ([pg. 3, left column] – “For a two target scenario… Please note that K=N is only valid for a uniform linear array with antenna spacing of λ/2 for a two target scenario… In the general case of a sparse antenna array, some elements in Eq. (14) are set to zero (zero filling) leading to an FFT of size K>N.”)
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 Westhues’ known technique to Bialer’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Bialer teaches a base method of modeling multipath mimo; (2) Westhues teaches a specific modeling technique of accommodating for sparse antenna array configurations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system with decreased power requirements; 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).
Regarding claim 4,
Bialer in view of GONZALEZ HUICI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Westhues teaches:
The method according to claim 1, in which a grid of the transmitting and receiving antennas is refined using zero padding, and the fast Fourier transform takes place on the refined grid. ([pg. 3, right col.] – “the fidelity of the FFT based search grid can be increased by means of zero padding.”)
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 Westhues’ known technique to Bialer’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Bialer teaches a base method of modeling multipath mimo for location estimation; (2) Westhues teaches a specific modeling technique of increasing fidelity via zero padding for angle separation; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system with decreased power requirements; 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).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210325510 A1 to Bialer in view of EP 3588128 A1 to Gonzalez Huici and further in view of US 20220094397 A1 to Wu.
Regarding claim 7,
Bialer in view of GONZALEZ HUICI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wu teaches:
The radar sensor according to claim 6, wherein the radar sensor further comprises an internal evaluation stage ([0027] – “At the receiver module(s) 14, the received signal is pulse compressed and coherently integrated, matched filtered,”) and an external hardware accelerator in which at least portions of the estimation are implemented. (Fig. 1; [0027] – “and then passed to the bi-static radar module 21 for CFAR detection to detect the range-Doppler peaks, construction of MIMO virtual arrays, construction of beamforming outputs of an extended difference co-array virtual array aperture using FFT hardware accelerator, and computation of a target map from the beamforming outputs to identify the range, Doppler, and angle values for one or more detected targets identified by the target returns.” Radar controller 20 is external to radar front-end RF MMICs 10, receiver modules 14. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
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 Bialer’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Bialer teaches a base method of modeling multipath mimo for determining target location; (2) Wu teaches a specific technique for processing MIMO signals for target angle determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 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 20210325510 A1 to Bialer; EP 3588128 A1 to Gonzalez Huici; “Low-Complexity Super Resolution Angle Separation for Sparse Antenna Arrays Based on Frequency Domain Maximum Likelihood” to Westhues (cited in IDS; doi: 10.1109/RadarConf2248738.2022.9764268); US 20220094397 A1 to Wu; US 20240280678 A1 to Kishgami; US 20220214425 A1 to Yoffe) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 2, 5. See analysis regarding claim 2 below. Dependent claim 5 indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims.
Regarding claim 2,
Bialer in view of GONZALEZ HUICI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Bialer further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, in which the cross-path model is represented by a control matrix A, the control matrix being broken down into a (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) product of two submatrices, a first one, A.sub.tx, of the two submatrices representing an arrangement of the transmitting antennas and the other one, A.sub.rx, of the two submatrices representing an arrangement of the receiving antennas, (Eq. 3-4; [0040] – “The transmit and receive array responses may be combined”)
PNG
media_image1.png
17
173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting and receiving antennas. ([0009] – “for each combination of candidate angles θ.sub.TX and θ.sub.RX, each element b.sub.i(θ.sub.TX) of the transmit array response vector b(θ.sub.TX) is multiplied by the receive array response vector r(θ.sub.RX)… The elements of the vector are complex values that indicate phase and amplitude.”)
While US 20240280678 A1 to Kishgami and US 20220214425 A1 to Yoffe additionally teach modeling of multipath MIMO systems using matrices corresponding to transmit antennas and to receive antennas, matrix multiplication, Kronecker products, and Hermitian operations, Examiner considers a rejection of claim 2 to require impermissible hindsight reconstruction requiring information gleaned only from Applicant’s specification.
Therefore, the prior art of record neither teaches nor renders obvious:
The method according to claim 1, in which the cross-path model is represented by a control matrix A, the control matrix being broken down into a Kronecker product
PNG
media_image2.png
18
90
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of two submatrices, a first one, A.sub.tx, of the two submatrices representing an arrangement of the transmitting antennas and the other one, A.sub.rx, of the two submatrices representing an arrangement of the receiving antennas, and the beamforming operation includes an approximate calculation of a matrix product
PNG
media_image3.png
17
173
media_image3.png
Greyscale
from the submatrices and a reception matrix X that specifies complex amplitudes of signals received with different combinations of the transmitting and receiving antennas.
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
Prosecution Insights