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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-14-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Mansour doesn’t use a code dictionary, the examiner submits that the code dictionary is associated with the CDMA signal and in the Office Action comes with the signal of Chi. Applicant further argues that the CDMA description of Chi is not sufficient to modify Mansour to use a predefined code dictionary, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chi provides the use of CDMA signals, which by design use a code dictionary. Applicant’s specification notes, in paragraph 47, that the code dictionary creates the transmission codes. Chi provides the same concept of providing a code to create the transmission signal as shown in paragraph 31 and Fig. 5. While Chi does not use the word “dictionary”, it is clear that Chi is modulating the transmission signal with a particular code sequence.
In combining the CDMA signals of Chi with the disclosure of Mansour, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the code portion of the CDMA signal must be implemented otherwise the CDMA signal cannot be created. It would also be understood that the code would be used to decode the return signal during the downstream processing of Mansour.
The combination of Mansour and Chi then provides a CDMA signal, derived from a specific code, and uses the return signal to execute an iterative sparse recovery method.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0129025, published April 27, 2023 in view of Chi, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0072640, published March 7, 2019.
As per claims 1, 9 and 13, Mansour discloses a radar system comprising:
a plurality of transmitter modules configured to transmit radar signals; a plurality of receiver modules (Mansour, ¶15);
and a controller configured to: encode radar signals, cause the plurality of transmitter modules to transmit the plurality of radar signals as transmitted signals, receive, using the plurality of receiver modules, reflections of the transmitted signals reflected by at least one object to generate signals based on the received reflections as observed signals, wherein a sparse matrix defines a relationship between the plurality of transmitter codes and values of the observed signals (Mansour, ¶59 and 65-66);
execute a sparse recovery method to determine the sparse matrix, which is associated with distance estimates based on the observed signals, using the predefined code dictionary and the observed signals (Mansour, ¶100), wherein executing the sparse recovery method includes: iteratively estimating the sparse matrix by applying an iterative solver to solve a sparse recovery problem (Mansour, ¶106),
estimating an attribute of the at least one object using the sparse matrix (Mansour, ¶100),
and transmitting the attribute of the at least one object to a vehicle driver assistance system (Mansour, ¶101).
Mansour fails to disclose using code division multiplexed signals with a predefined code.
Chi teaches use of CDMA signals with a predefined code (¶31 and Fig. 5).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use coded signals, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Mansour. Examiner submits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to determine what transmission signals to use.
As per claims 2 and 14, Mansour as modified by Chi discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the predefined code dictionary includes a code dictionary matrix configured as a circulant matrix wherein each column in the code dictionary matrix is a circularly shifted version of a first column of the code dictionary matrix (Chi, ¶38).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a circulant matrix dictionary, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Mansour and Chi. Examiner submits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to determine how a coding scheme should be arranged.
As per claims 4, 11 and 16, Mansour as modified by Chi further discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the solver includes at least one of an Iterative Shrinkage Thresholding Algorithm (ISTA), Approximate Message Passing (AMP) algorithm, and an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) (Mansour, ¶52).
As per claims 5, 12 and 17 Mansour as modified by Chi further discloses the radar system of claim 4, wherein the ISTA, FISTA, or ADMM algorithm are configured to execute a predetermined model to determine the sparse matrix, wherein the predetermined model is trained using unfolded versions of the at least one of the ISTA, FISTA, and ADMM algorithm (Mansour, ¶52).
As per claims 6 and 18, Mansour as modified by Chi further discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to execute Doppler processing and Doppler compensation before iteratively estimating the sparse matrix and before estimating the attribute of the at least one object (Mansour, ¶74 and Chi, ¶44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use doppler processing in order to gain the well-known advantage of detecting object movement.
As per claims 7 and 19, Mansour as modified by Chi further discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform Doppler processing of the observed signals after iteratively estimating the sparse matrix (Mansour, ¶74 and Chi, ¶44).
As per claims 8 and 20, Mansour as modified by Chi further discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, in parallel, execute the sparse recovery method on signals received simultaneously from each of the receiver modules (Mansour, ¶138).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour and Chi as applied to claims 1, 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Gogna, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0026348, published January 28, 2021.
As per claims 3, 10 and 15, Mansour as modified by Chi discloses the system of claim 1 including solving the sparse recovery problem using the CDMA coding but fails to disclose the use of LASSO.
Gogna teaches LASSO in autonomous vehicle control (¶93).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use LASSO in order to gain the benefit of using an existing and well-known method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights