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 .
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 21 April, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection(s) regarding claim(s) 2-9, and 15-19 have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Claim rejection(s) regarding claim(s) 5 and 8 under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 21 April, 2026 regarding claim(s) 1 and 14 has been fully considered but are not persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument:
“First, Zaidi merely states a desired goal for autonomous driving namely, the ability to detect objects at both short and long ranges in a short amount of time. Zaidi does not disclose a resource scheduler, nor does it teach to optimize (i.e., find the mathematical minimum) of a scan interval while satisfying specific constraints (such as SNR, Doppler coverage, or range migration). Identifying an ideal objective (fast detection) is not equivalent to disclosing the specific technical means to achieve that objective. Zaidi does not teach or suggest the claimed technical solution of optimizing a one-round scan interval of the first scanning mode to be shortest as a condition to derive or generate the specific signal parameters. Without hindsight bias derived from Applicant's own disclosure, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to deduce the scheduling mechanism of optimizing a one-round scan interval simply from Zaidi's general desire for rapid detection.
Second, the concept of "time" described in Zaidi is different from the "one-round scan interval" recited in the present invention. As disclosed in the present application, the "one-round scan interval" of the first scanning mode refers to the time required to complete a single, full-coverage scan. Crucially, during this one-round scan interval, the radar coverage is divided into multiple sections (e.g., a first detection distance range and a second detection distance range) using different signal parameters, and within each specific section, the radar further scans across a plurality of different azimuth angles. The optimization of the one-round scan interval in the present invention aims to minimize the duration of this comprehensive, multi-range, and multi-angle scanning process seamlessly within the first scanning mode. In contrast, Zaidi teaches a radar capable of time-alternatively reconfiguring or switching between two completely independent and unrelated modes: a long-range radar (LRR) mode and a short-range radar (SRR) mode. The time reduction discussed in Zaidi refers merely to the operational desire to quickly switch between and operate these two separate modes. Zaidi does not teach or suggest a continuous full-range scan that is explicitly partitioned into different detection distance ranges, let alone scanning across a plurality of different azimuth angles within each partitioned range during a single scanning mode's "one-round scan interval." Therefore, Zaidi's teaching of fast detection by alternating between independent modes should be distinct from the claimed technical solution of optimizing a single, complex one-round scan interval comprising multi-range and multi- azimuth sectional scanning.”
Examiner’s response:
Firstly, with respect to Applicant’s argument that Zaidi does not disclose a resource scheduler, nor does it teach to optimize (i.e., find the mathematical minimum) of a scan interval while satisfying specific constraints (such as SNR, Doppler coverage, or range migration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not specify that the resource scheduler is anything more than a control unit/ processing circuitry. The Applicant’s disclosure does not provide further specifics for the resource scheduler. Similarly, it appears that the Applicant argues a far too narrow interpretation of the claim for the claimed constraints, as the claimed constraints are not defined beyond being some operating parameters to be met.
Secondly, the concept of “time” described in Zaidi and the “one-round scan interval” of the instant application appears to be the same, as Zaidi also aims to complete the detection in a short amount of time, covering both long and short ranges. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Zaidi does not teach or suggest a continuous full-range scan that is explicitly partitioned into different detection distance ranges, let alone scanning across a plurality of different azimuth angles within each partitioned range during a single scanning mode's "one-round scan interval"”, the Examiner would like to note that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a continuous full-range scan that is explicitly partitioned into different detection distance ranges […] scanning across a plurality of different azimuth angles within each partitioned range during a single scanning mode's "one-round scan interval") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbert (US 2007/0063889 A1 previously cited “HULBERT”), in view of Zaidi (US 2022/0308204 A1 previously cited “ZAIDI”).
Regarding claim 1, HULBERT discloses (Examiner’s note: What HULBERT does not disclose is ) a radar system, comprising:
a first subarray comprising a plurality of first antennas disposed along a first axis (a horizontal array 2, comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG.2 below with annotated “first subarray”.
a second subarray comprising a plurality of second antennas disposed along the first axis (a horizontal array 2, comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG. 2 below with annotated “second subarray”.
and a third subarray comprising a plurality of third antennas disposed along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (a vertical array 1 comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 2]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG. 2 below with annotated “third subarray”.
wherein in a first scanning mode for scanning a radar coverage of the radar system, the radar system utilizes the first subarray and the second subarray as radio frequency (RF) signal transceivers (in the horizontal array, both transmit elements 8 and receive elements 9 are provided for each antenna element 6 of the array 2 [0017]) and utilizes the third subarray as a RF signal receiver (the horizontal array can transmit and receive, but the vertical array is only required to receive [0015 & claim 1]) to:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Snippet of annotated FIG. 2
HULBERT further discloses that the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth by transmitting 14 a radar beam [0020]). Examiner’s note: It is noted that a radar system such as one disclosed in HULBERT inherently has a detection distance range. It is further noted that the radar system disclosed in HULBERT therefore inherent scans with at least one signal parameter, and likely with a plurality of signal parameters. However, the plurality of signal parameters are not disclosed explicitly. In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI relates to a beam steering radar for use in an autonomous vehicle. Specifically, ZAIDI teaches that a beam steering radar with a selective scanning mode in an autonomous vehicle used to detect and identify objects. The radar signal is transmitted according to a set of scan parameters that can be adjusted to result in multiple transmission beams 118 [0015 & FIG. 1]. Radar 300 also includes a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) 358 to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [0043]. Furthermore, ZAIDI teaches that beam steering radar 106 is capable of detecting both vehicle 120 at a far range (e.g., >250 m) as well as bus 122 at a short range (e.g., <100 m). Detecting both in a short amount of time and with enough range and velocity resolution is imperative for full autonomy of driving functions of the ego vehicle Radar 106 is capable of time-alternatively reconfiguring between long-range radar (“LRR”) and short-range radar (“SRR”) modes [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enable capability to detect obstacles in dynamic environment, such as for city and highway driving, as recognized by ZAIDI. In addition, both of the prior art references, HULBERT and ZAIDI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, array antenna for radiating RF signals.
Regarding claim 2, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein during a process of the radar system scanning the first detection distance range: the first subarray and the second subarray are configured to transmit a plurality of first RF beams toward a plurality of first azimuth angles in a plurality of first pulse durations respectively (a transmit scanning processor 12 is coupled to each transmit element 8, so that a radar pulse is transmitted from the transmit elements 8 of the horizontal array 2 [HULBERT 0019]); (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth by transmitting 14 a radar beam [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); and the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray are configured to receive a plurality of first incoming signals in a plurality of first swath durations to detect objects within the first detection distance range, wherein each of the plurality of first swath durations is after a corresponding one of the plurality of first pulse durations (the radar returns 15 enter the receive function 9 of the horizontal array via a steered beam that is pointing in substantially the same direction as it was when the radar pulse was transmitted from the transmit units 8. The return(s) from the target(s) are also being received 16 by the antenna elements 6 of the vertical array 1 [HULBERT 0020]); (the signals received over the range of possible radar returns are captured 18 into digital memory 13 for each of the elements 6 of the vertical array 1. The output 19 of the steered azimuth beam is a number of delays corresponding to returns from possible targets for each azimuth angle [HULBERT 0021]); wherein the plurality of first azimuth angles are defined on a plane formed by the first axis and a third axis orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth by transmitting 14 a radar beam [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, HULBERT, as modified, discloses the radar system of claim 2, of a main plane of each of the plurality of first RF beams has no vector component along the second axis (the first and second arrays are arranged as a crossed array formed of both horizontal and vertical arrays; and wherein the horizontal array scans in azimuth, so that the vertical array only needs to scan in elevation [HULBERT 0005]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI teaches FIG. 4 that shows a fan-shaped beam area [FIG. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because a fan-shaped beam would provide wide coverage and resolve angles efficiently.
Regarding claim 4, HULBERT/ ZALDI discloses the radar system of claim 2, wherein during a process of the radar system scanning the second detection distance range: the first subarray and the second subarray are configured to transmit a plurality of second RF beams toward a plurality of second azimuth angles in a plurality of second pulse durations respectively (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); and the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray are configured to receive a plurality of second incoming signals in a plurality of second swath durations to detect objects within the second detection distance range, wherein each of the plurality of second swath durations is after a corresponding one of the plurality of second pulse durations (the radar returns 15 enter the receive function 9 of the horizontal array via a steered beam that is pointing in substantially the same direction as it was when the radar pulse was transmitted from the transmit units 8. The return(s) from the target(s) are also being received 16 by the antenna elements 6 of the vertical array 1 [HULBERT 0020]); (the signals received over the range of possible radar returns are captured 18 into digital memory 13 for each of the elements 6 of the vertical array 1. The output 19 of the steered azimuth beam is a number of delays corresponding to returns from possible targets for each azimuth angle [HULBERT 0021]).
Regarding claim 5, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 4, wherein a number of first azimuth angles is equal to a number of second azimuth angles (to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [ZAIDI 0043], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 4, wherein in a second scanning mode for scanning at least one part of the radar coverage of the radar system: the first subarray and the second subarray are configured to transmit a plurality of third RF beams toward a plurality of third azimuth angles according to a position information of a target object derived in the first scanning mode; and the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray are configured to receive a plurality of third incoming signals to detect the target object (a transmit scanning processor 12 is coupled to each transmit element 8, so that a radar pulse is transmitted from the transmit elements 8 of the horizontal array 2 [HULBERT 0019]); (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); wherein a one-round scan interval of the second scanning mode is shorter than a one-round scan interval of the first scanning mode (to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [ZAIDI 0043], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, HULBERT, as modified, discloses the radar system of claim 6, wherein the position information of the target object includes a detected position of the target object (the range to the target and the azimuth can be ascertained [HULBERT 0021])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI teaches that each chirp is sampled multiple times to give multiple range measurements and measure doppler velocity accurately [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enable capability to detect obstacles in dynamic environment, such as for city and highway driving, as recognized by ZAIDI.
Regarding claim 8, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 6, wherein a number of third azimuth angles is less than each of a number of first azimuth angles and a number of second azimuth angles (enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [ZAIDI 0043], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, HULBERT, as modified, discloses the radar system of claim 6, scanning mode to the second scanning mode (radar 106 is capable of time-alternatively reconfiguring between long-range radar (“LRR”) and short-range radar (“SRR”) modes [ZAIDI 0019], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI teaches that radar 300 also includes a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) 358 to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enable capability to detect obstacles in dynamic environment, such as for city and highway driving, as recognized by ZAIDI.
Regarding claim 10, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first signal parameters comprise at least one of: a number of samples per pulse duration, a number of samples per swath in a pulse repetition interval (PRI), a number of samples per the PRI, a number of PRIs per pulse averaging interval (PAI), a number of PAIs per coherent processing interval (CPI), a minimum detectable range of the first detection distance range, or a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range (a short range (e.g., <100 m) [ZAIDI 0019], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that the limitation “a number of samples per pulse duration, a number of samples per swath in a pulse repetition interval (PRI), a number of samples per the PRI, a number of PRIs per pulse averaging interval (PAI), a number of PAIs per coherent processing interval (CPI), a minimum detectable range of the first detection distance range, or a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, a short range (e.g., <100 m) as disclosed by ZAIDI corresponds to the claimed “a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range”.
Regarding claim 12, HULBERT, as modified, discloses the radar system of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI teaches that once the received signals are received by transceiver 306, they are processed by processing engines 350. Processing engines 350 include perception engine 304 which detects and identifies objects in the received signal with neural network and artificial intelligence techniques, database 352 to store historical and other information for radar 300, and a Digital Signal Processing (“DSP”) engine 354 with an Analog-to-Digital Converter (“ADC”) module to convert the analog signals from transceiver 306 into digital signals that can be processed to determine angles of arrival and other valuable information for the detection and identification of objects by perception engine 304 [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enhance the radar system to effectively resolve for targets in a dynamic environment, as recognized by ZAIDI.
Regarding claim 14, HULBERT discloses a method for scanning objects with a radar system comprising a first subarray, a second subarray, and a third subarray (Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG. 2 below with “first subarray”, “second subarray”, and “third subarray”), the method comprising:
arranging the first subarray comprising a plurality of first antennas to dispose the plurality of first antennas along a first axis (a horizontal array 2, comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG.2 below with annotated “first subarray”.
arranging the second subarray comprising a plurality of second antennas to dispose the plurality of second antennas along the first axis (a horizontal array 2, comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG.2 below with annotated “second subarray”.
arranging the third subarray comprising a plurality of third antennas to dispose the plurality of third antennas along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (a vertical array 1 comprising multiple elements 3 [0016 & FIG. 2]). Examiner’s note: See snippet of annotated FIG. 2 below with annotated “third subarray”.
in a first scanning mode for scanning a radar coverage of the radar system, utilizing the first subarray and the second subarray as radio frequency (RF) signal transceivers (in the horizontal array, both transmit elements 8 and receive elements 9 are provided for each antenna element 6 of the array 2 [0017]) and utilizing the third subarray as a RF signal receiver (the horizontal array can transmit and receive, but the vertical array is only required to receive [0015 & claim 1]) to:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Snippet of annotated FIG. 2
HULBERT further discloses that the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth by transmitting 14 a radar beam [0020]). Examiner’s note: It is noted that a radar system such as one disclosed in HULBERT inherently has a detection distance range. It is further noted that the radar system disclosed in HULBERT therefore inherent scans with at least one signal parameter, and likely with a plurality of signal parameters. However, the plurality of signal parameters are not disclosed explicitly. In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI relates to a beam steering radar. Specifically, ZAIDI teaches a beam steering radar with a selective scanning mode. The radar signal is transmitted according to a set of scan parameters that can be adjusted to result in multiple transmission beams 118 [0015 & FIG. 1]. Radar 300 also includes a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) 358 to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [0043]. Furthermore, ZAIDI teaches that beam steering radar 106 is capable of detecting both vehicle 120 at a far range (e.g., >250 m) as well as bus 122 at a short range (e.g., <100 m). Detecting both in a short amount of time and with enough range and velocity resolution is imperative for full autonomy of driving functions of the ego vehicle. Radar 106 is capable of time-alternatively reconfiguring between long-range radar (“LRR”) and short-range radar (“SRR”) modes [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enable capability to detect obstacles in dynamic environment, such as for city and highway driving, as recognized by ZAIDI.
Regarding claim 15, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the step to scan the first detection distance range according to the plurality of first signal parameters comprises: arranging the first subarray and the second subarray to transmit a plurality of RF beams toward a plurality of first azimuth angles in a plurality of first pulse durations (a transmit scanning processor 12 is coupled to each transmit element 8, so that a radar pulse is transmitted from the transmit elements 8 of the horizontal array 2 [HULBERT 0019]); (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14); and arranging the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray to receive a plurality of first incoming signals in a plurality of first swath durations to detect objects within the first detection distance range, wherein each of the plurality of first swath durations is after a corresponding one of the plurality of first pulse durations (the radar returns 15 enter the receive function 9 of the horizontal array via a steered beam that is pointing in substantially the same direction as it was when the radar pulse was transmitted from the transmit units 8. The return(s) from the target(s) are also being received 16 by the antenna elements 6 of the vertical array 1 [HULBERT 0020]); (the signals received over the range of possible radar returns are captured 18 into digital memory 13 for each of the elements 6 of the vertical array 1. The output 19 of the steered azimuth beam is a number of delays corresponding to returns from possible targets for each azimuth angle [HULBERT 0021]); wherein the plurality of first azimuth angles are defined on a plane formed by the first axis and a third axis orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth by transmitting 14 a radar beam [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the step to scan the second detection distance range according to the plurality of second signal parameters comprises: arranging the first subarray and the second subarray to transmit a plurality of second RF beams toward a plurality of second azimuth angles in a plurality of second pulse durations (a transmit scanning processor 12 is coupled to each transmit element 8, so that a radar pulse is transmitted from the transmit elements 8 of the horizontal array 2 [HULBERT 0019]); (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14); and arranging the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray to receive a plurality of second incoming signals in a plurality of second swath durations to detect objects within the second detection distance range, wherein each of the plurality of second swath durations is after a corresponding one of the plurality of second pulse durations (the radar returns 15 enter the receive function 9 of the horizontal array via a steered beam that is pointing in substantially the same direction as it was when the radar pulse was transmitted from the transmit units 8. The return(s) from the target(s) are also being received 16 by the antenna elements 6 of the vertical array 1 [HULBERT 0020]); (the signals received over the range of possible radar returns are captured 18 into digital memory 13 for each of the elements 6 of the vertical array 1. The output 19 of the steered azimuth beam is a number of delays corresponding to returns from possible targets for each azimuth angle [HULBERT 0021]).
Regarding claim 17, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising in a second scanning mode for scanning at least one part of the radar coverage of the radar system: arranging the first subarray and the second subarray to transmit a plurality of third RF beams toward a plurality of third azimuth angles according a position information of a target object derived in the first scanning mode; and arranging the first subarray, the second subarray, and the third subarray to receive a plurality of third incoming signals to detect the target object (a transmit scanning processor 12 is coupled to each transmit element 8, so that a radar pulse is transmitted from the transmit elements 8 of the horizontal array 2 [HULBERT 0019]); (the horizontal array 2 of the radar operates in a conventional manner, scanning in azimuth [HULBERT 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14); wherein a one-round scan interval of the second scanning mode is shorter than a one-round scan interval of the first scanning mode (to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [ZAIDI 0043], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, HULBERT, as modified, discloses the method of claim 17, radar 106 is capable of time-alternatively reconfiguring between long-range radar (“LRR”) and short-range radar (“SRR”) modes [ZAIDI 0019], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZAIDI teaches that radar 300 also includes a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) 358 to enable configuration of scan parameters such as the total angle of the scanned area defining the FoV, the beam width or the scan angle of each incremental transmission beam, the number of chirps in the radar signal, the chirp time, the chirp slope, the chirp segment time, and so on as desired [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of ZAIDI, because doing so would enable capability to detect obstacles in dynamic environment, such as for city and highway driving, as recognized by ZAIDI.
Regarding claim 19, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the plurality of first signal parameters comprise at least one of: a number of samples per pulse duration, a number of samples per swath in a pulse repetition interval (PRI), a number of samples per the PRI, a number of PRIs per pulse averaging interval (PAI), a number of PAIs per coherent processing interval (CPI), a minimum detectable range of the first detection distance range, or a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range (a short range (e.g., <100 m) [ZAIDI 0019], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that the limitation “a number of samples per pulse duration, a number of samples per swath in a pulse repetition interval (PRI), a number of samples per the PRI, a number of PRIs per pulse averaging interval (PAI), a number of PAIs per coherent processing interval (CPI), a minimum detectable range of the first detection distance range, or a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, a short range (e.g., <100 m) as disclosed by ZAIDI corresponds to the claimed “a maximum detectable range of the first detection distance range”.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HULBERT, in view of ZAIDI, and further in view of Culkin et al. (US 2010/0328157 A1 previously cited “CULKIN”).
Regarding claim 13, HULBERT/ ZAIDI discloses the radar system of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CULKIN relates to RF communication systems. Specifically, CULKIN teaches that the antenna elements maybe separated by a distance substantially equal to λ/2, where λ is the wavelength associated with carrier frequency of the transmitted beam [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of HULBERT to include the teachings of CULKIN, because doing so would configure the radar system to required off bore sight scan angle without the presence of grating lobes, as recognized by CULKIN. In addition, both of the prior art references, HULBERT and CULKIN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radar system that includes an antenna array for RF object detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0120847 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a first one-dimensional (1D) (e.g., linear) subarray; a second 1D subarray positioned orthogonal to the first 1D subarray; and a two-dimensional (2D) subarray.
Tietjen et al. (US 2008/0291087 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a phased array radar system comprising a plurality of radiating elements configured in a common array aperture for detecting and tracking targets; and a transmit and receive arrangement responsive to a first control signal for configuring the plurality of radiating elements to define a plurality of sub-apertures from the common array aperture for detecting and tracking short range targets, wherein the plurality of sub-apertures are independently steerable array apertures.
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 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 HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 10, 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights