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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “the mask matrix is a binary matrix” in line 1. It appears that this limitation is the same as “a binary mask matrix” in claim 1 line 9.
Claim 12 objected to because of typographical error: “s” in line 1. It appears that “s” should be “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13 objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym FFT should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym “IMATCS” and “YALL1” in line 6 should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
Claim 18 objected to because of typographical error: “an” in line 2. It appears that “an” should be “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: 1) "remaining value" in line 13. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear which one of “disrupted sampling values” and “disruption-free sampling values” mentioned in lines 8-9 the "remaining value" represents. ii) it is not clear whether or not the "remaining value" represents the “discrete beat signal” outside of “the mask matrix” mentioned in line 14. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the discrete beat signal”. 2) “the mask matrix” in line 14. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the mask matrix” in line 14 is the same as “a binary mask matrix” mentioned in line 9 since: i) “the mask matrix” is mentioned in claims 7-9; and ii) claim 8 details that “the mask matrix is a binary matrix” (see claim 8 line 1), which indicates that “the mask matrix” in claim 1 line 14 may not be the “a binary mask matrix” mentioned in claim 1 line 9. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the binary mask matrix”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-19 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation: “the object” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “object” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “an object”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “the sampling values” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “disruption-free sampling values” and the “disrupted sampling values” defined in claim 1 lines 9-10 “the sampling values” in line 3 represent. Or “the sampling values” in line 3 represent both the “disruption-free sampling values” and the “disrupted sampling values” defined in claim 1 lines 9-10. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the disruption-free and the disrupted sampling values”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation: “a method is used for reconstructing the spectrum: a basis pursuit reconstruction method, an iterative soft thresholding reconstruction method, an iterative hard thresholding reconstruction method, an orthogonal matching pursuit reconstruction method, an approximate message passing reconstruction method, an adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method (IMATCS), or a YALL1 reconstruction method” in lines 1-6. It is indefinite because: 1) the “the method” and “a method” in line 1 cause confusion in the claim. 2) it is not clear whether or not the “a method” in line 1 is one of “a basis pursuit reconstruction method, an iterative soft thresholding reconstruction method, an iterative hard thresholding reconstruction method, an orthogonal matching pursuit reconstruction method, an approximate message passing reconstruction method, an adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method (IMATCS), or a YALL1 reconstruction method”. 3) it is not clear what relationship between “an adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method” and “(IMATCS)” because “IMATCS” is not acronym of “adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the reconstructing the spectrum comprise one of: a basis pursuit reconstruction method, an iterative soft thresholding reconstruction method, an iterative hard thresholding reconstruction method, an orthogonal matching pursuit reconstruction method, an approximate message passing reconstruction method, an adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method (IMATCS), or a YALL1 reconstruction method”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation: “the spectrum” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a spectrum” in line 2 and “a spectrum” in claim 1 line 1 “the spectrum” in line 3 represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “a spectrum” in claim 1 line 1. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 disclose statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and non-statutory subject matter is not eligible for patent protection.
Claim 19 recites “A computer program product”, which covers non-transitory media and transitory propagating signals. The transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter and not eligible for patent protection. The claim does not limit the product to the statutory embodiments. The BRI of “a computer program product” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating signal per se. When the BRI of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category). Thus, a claim to a computer program product that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). So claim 19 fails step 1 of the eligibility analysis for “the four categories of statutory subject matter”, that is claim 19 failures to fall within a statutory class.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner et al. (US 11,885,903, hereafter Meissner) in view of Wennersten et al. (US 11,448,752, hereafter Wennersten).
Regarding claim 1, Meissner (‘903) discloses that A method to reconstruct a spectrum, in particular a two-dimensional range-Doppler spectrum, from a signal of a radar sensor disrupted by interference for a vehicle { Abstract line 1 (method); Fig.5 items (yRF,T, yRF,i) received by item 6 (RX antenna); Fig.9 (FFT, Doppler frequency axis, Frequency/range axis); Fig.14 (range-Doppler map, filtered range-Doppler map); col.5 lines 18-21 (the signal components YRF,T(t) and YRF,I(t) of the received signal yRF(t) correspond to the radar echoes from real radar targets T, and the interfering signals.); Examiner’s note: “filtered range Doppler map” in Fig.14 for “reconstruct a spectrum, in particular a two-dimensional range-Doppler spectrum”}, the method comprising:
emitting a transmission signal { Fig.5 item 5 (SRF(t)); col.3 lines 24-25 (the radar device 1 has separate transmission (TX) and reception (RX) antennas 5 and 6,), 29-30 (The transmission antenna 5 emits a continuous RF signal sRF(t),)};
receiving a received signal that correlates to the transmission signal { Fig.5 item 6 (yRF, T); col.3 lines 24-25 (the radar device 1 has separate transmission (TX) and reception (RX) antennas 5 and 6,), 32-35 (The emitted signal sRF(t) is backscattered at the radar target T and the backscattered/ reflected signal yRF(t) (echo signal) is received by the reception antenna 6.)};
filtering and sampling the received signal {Fig.3 items 20 (baseband signal proc.) 30 (ADC); col.6 lines 18-21 (the analog baseband signal processing chain 20 essentially brings about amplification and (for example band-pass or low-pass) filtering in order to suppress undesired sidebands and mirror frequencies};
determining a discrete beat signal from the filtered and sampled received signal { Col.8 lines 13-22 (As is able to be seen in graph (a) in FIG. 9, the time difference Δt results in a corresponding frequency difference Δf. This frequency difference Δf may be determined by mixing the arriving (and possibly pre-amplified) radar signal yRF(t) with the LO signal, digitizing the resulting baseband signal y(t), The frequency difference Δf then appears in the spectrum of the digitized baseband signal y[n] as what is called the beat frequency); Examiner’s note: “The frequency difference Δf then appears in the spectrum of the digitized baseband signal y[n] as what is called the beat frequency” for “discrete beat signal”};
However, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose “detecting disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal”, “generating a binary mask matrix for marking disruption-free sampling values and for masking disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal”, “reconstructing the spectrum from disruption-free sampling values of the discrete beat signal with the aid of a transmission function”, and “monitoring remaining value updates during the reconstruction of the spectrum with the aid of the mask matrix”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that
detecting disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal { Abstract lines 3-4 (identifying one or more interference segments within the measured sequence of beat signals)};
generating a binary mask matrix for marking disruption-free sampling values and for masking disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal {Fig.1 item 1 (beat signals), 4 (interference segment); Fig.4A; Fig.5A; col.2 lines 60-62 (the measured 1 sequence of beat signals, interference segment 4); col.4 lines 27-29 (identifying segments in the measured sequence of beat signals 1 which are subject to interference, and to mask these segments, e.g. by setting them to zero), 45-48 (FIG. 4A illustrates the entire doctored representation 6 of the measured sequence of beat signals, in matrix format referred to as Y, in the form of a grayscale image.); col.5 lines 29-33 (FIG. 5A is a binary image where white areas represents masking value 0, i.e. segments which were set to zero in FIG. 4A and black areas represent masking value 1, i.e. segments which were not masked at all in FIG. 4A); Examiner’s note: zero for “disrupted sampling values”. Fig.5A for “binary mask matrix”};
reconstructing the spectrum from disruption-free sampling values of the discrete beat signal with the aid of a transmission function { Fig.5B; Fig.7 item S110 (Estimate a reconstructed range - doppler image); col.5 lines 34-35 (a range-doppler image derived from the binary image of FIG. 5A); col.9 lines 9-11 (the masking value for at least some non-interference segments may be set to one such that these segments retain their amplitude after the doctoring), 17-18 (The masking values may be configured to form at least one window function in the matrix M,), 38-39 (A window function may provide a smooth transition from a maximum value to a minimum value); Examiner’s note: “window function” for “a transmission function”}; and
monitoring remaining value updates during the reconstruction of the spectrum with the aid of the mask matrix {Col.1 line 47 (a radar used to monitor traffic); Col.2 lines 32-36 (the reconstructed range-doppler image is a range-doppler image of Y which is deconvolved using M, a range-doppler image being a time-frequency transform of a representation of a sequence of beat signals;), 44-46 (The measured sequence of beat signals 1 comprises a sequence of b beat signals 2 each having a segment 3.), 48-50 (b beat signals 2 are organized next to each other along the horizontal axis of FIG. 1, starting with the first signal.); col.6 lines 15-16 (The measured sequence of beat signals may e.g. be a sequence of beat signals constituting one measured frame.); col.12 lines 59-60 (The sequences of signals may be transmitted in frames.); Examiner’s note: col.2 lines 48-50, col.6 lines 15-16, and col.12 lines 59-60 for “monitoring remaining value updates” because radar monitor traffic and data sequence is continuous. Range-doppler image is processed frame by frame }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image } to remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the emission of the transmission signal takes place with the aid of multiple frequency ramps within a time period or a transmission frequency of the frequency ramps being modulated {see Meissner (‘903) Fig.2}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the received signal is specific to a distance to an object outside the vehicle, on which the transmission signal is at least partially reflected { see Meissner (‘903) Fig.4 (V1 versus V4 with echo signal and interfering signal); Fig.5 items (yRF,T)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the spectrum is at least two-dimensional, and/or wherein at least one first dimension of the spectrum is specific to a distance to the object, and at least one second dimension of the spectrum is specific to a velocity of the object { see Meissner (‘903) Fig.9 (c) (Frequency/range axis, Doppler frequency axis)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “the mask matrix is two-dimensional, and/or the dimension of the mask matrix is determined according to the dimension of the discrete beat signal in matrix form”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the mask matrix is two-dimensional, and/or the dimension of the mask matrix is determined according to the dimension of the discrete beat signal in matrix form { Fig.5A }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image based on received data} to remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image based on received data. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “the mask matrix is a binary matrix, and/or the mask matrix has a value of “zero” at positions corresponding to the positions of disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal, and/or the mask matrix has a value of “one” at positions corresponding to the positions of disruption-free sampling values in the discrete beat signal”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the mask matrix is a binary matrix, and/or the mask matrix has a value of “zero” at positions corresponding to the positions of disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal, and/or the mask matrix has a value of “one” at positions corresponding to the positions of disruption-free sampling values in the discrete beat signal { Fig.5A; col.4 lines 45-48 (FIG. 4A illustrates the entire doctored representation 6 of the measured sequence of beat signals, in matrix format referred to as Y, in the form of a grayscale image.); col.5 lines 29-33 (FIG. 5A is a binary image where white areas represents masking value 0, i.e. segments which were set to zero in FIG. 4A and black areas represent masking value 1, i.e. segments which were not masked at all in FIG. 4A)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image} to remove interference segment in received beat signal by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “during the monitoring of remaining value updates, the remaining value updates are tracked with the aid of the mask matrix at positions of disruption-free sampling values in the discrete beat signal”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
during the monitoring of remaining value updates, the remaining value updates are tracked with the aid of the mask matrix at positions of disruption-free sampling values in the discrete beat signal { Fig.5A; Examiner’s note: mask are repeated along beat signal index axis.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “the size of the transmission function is fixed during the reconstruction of the spectrum”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the size of the transmission function is fixed during the reconstruction of the spectrum { Col.9 lines 18-19 (The masking values may be configured to form at least one window function in the matrix M,) 38-39 (A window function may provide a smooth transition from a maximum value to a minimum value), 50-55 (
PNG
media_image1.png
112
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); Col. 11 lines 17-18 (Estimate a reconstructed range-doppler image from Y and M)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “a two-dimensional, inverse discrete Fourier transform or an inverse fast Fourier transform is used within the scope of the transmission function when reconstructing the spectrum”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
a two-dimensional, inverse discrete Fourier transform or an inverse fast Fourier transform is used within the scope of the transmission function when reconstructing the spectrum {Col.3 lines 12-13 (The range-doppler image may thus be a two-dimensional image); col.11 lines 17-18 (estimate a reconstructed range-doppler image
PNG
media_image2.png
23
16
media_image2.png
Greyscale
from Y and M); col.15 lines 25-26 (The result may then be inversely Fourier transformed to form
PNG
media_image2.png
23
16
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using Fourier transform and inverse Fourier transform in signal processing} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using Fourier transform and inverse Fourier transform in signal processing. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost using information in time domain and frequency domain because signal needs to be converted back to time domain after analysis in frequency domain so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.11 lines 23-24 (from a time domain to a frequency domain); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. pair-wised use Fourier transform and inverse Fourier transform in signal reconstruction) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. use information in time domain and frequency domain) and result in an improved system (e.g. reducing interference in radar images and providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.11 lines 23-24 (from a time domain to a frequency domain); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “the transmission function s determined with the aid of an accelerator for an FFT processing”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the transmission function s determined with the aid of an accelerator for an FFT processing { Col.15 lines 15-16 (
PNG
media_image3.png
65
247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using fast Fourier transform in signal processing} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using fast Fourier transform in signal processing. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost and use information in time domain and frequency domain with fast implement method so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.11 lines 23-24 (from a time domain to a frequency domain); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose that “the reconstruction of the spectrum is carried out with the aid of a solver for a compressed sensing or an accelerator is implemented for an FFT processing in the solver for the compressed sensing”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the reconstruction of the spectrum is carried out with the aid of a solver for a compressed sensing or an accelerator is implemented for an FFT processing in the solver for the compressed sensing { col.11 lines 17-18 (estimate a reconstructed range-doppler image
PNG
media_image2.png
23
16
media_image2.png
Greyscale
from Y and M); Col.15 lines 15-16 (
PNG
media_image3.png
65
247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), 25-26 (The result may then be inversely Fourier transformed to form
PNG
media_image2.png
23
16
media_image2.png
Greyscale
); Examiner’s note: “Fourier transform” for “a compressed sensing”.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using fast Fourier transform in signal processing} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image using fast Fourier transform in signal processing. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost using information in time domain and frequency domain (e.g. Fourier transform, FFT) so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.11 lines 23-24 (from a time domain to a frequency domain); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) discloses that in the method,
during the reconstruction of the spectrum, a spectrum is determined as a reconstructed spectrum which comprises a remaining value update of the spectrum {Fig.14; Examiner’s note: filtered range Doppler map” is interpreted as “a reconstructed spectrum”} .
However, Meissner (‘903) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “during the reconstruction of the spectrum, a spectrum is determined as a reconstructed spectrum which comprises a remaining value update of the spectrum which drops below a certain threshold value”. In the same field of endeavor, Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
during the reconstruction of the spectrum, a spectrum is determined as a reconstructed spectrum which comprises a remaining value update of the spectrum which drops below a certain threshold value { col.4 lines 27-29 (identifying segments in the measured sequence of beat signals 1 which are subject to interference, and to mask these segments, e.g. by setting them to zero); col.5 lines 29-33 (FIG. 5A is a binary image where white areas represents masking value 0, i.e. segments which were set to zero in FIG. 4A and black areas represent masking value 1, i.e. segments which were not masked at all in FIG. 4A); Col.7 lines 42-43 (Interference segments may be identified e.g. by finding all elements with an amplitude higher than a threshold.); Examiner’s note: Col.7 lines 42-43 implies that interfere free data points are “a remaining value update of the spectrum which drops below a certain threshold value”, which are used to form the reconstructed spectrum}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meissner (‘903) with the teachings of Wennersten (‘752) {remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image by identifying interference segments using threshold} to remove interference segment in received beat signal sequence by using zeros and ones with fixed size of a window function in matrix before reconstructing range-doppler image by identifying interference segments using threshold. Doing so would provide a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems with low cost so as to providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections, as recognized by Wennersten (‘752) {col.1 lines 52-56 (Providing a way of reducing interference in radar images from FMCW radar systems would be beneficial. Additionally, providing radar images that enable high probability of target detection and low probability of false target detections would also be beneficial.); col.12 lines 2-3 (fewer antennas may be needed which may relieve some of the cost)}.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) discloses that in the method,
the method results directly in a two-dimensional range-Doppler spectrum {see Meissner (‘903) Fig.9 (c) (Frequency/range axis, Doppler frequency axis); Fig.14}.
Regarding claim 18, as modified above, Meissner (‘903) discloses that A radar sensor for a vehicle { Title (fmcw radar); Fig.4}, the radar sensor comprising:
a transmitter for emitting an transmission signal {Fig.5 TX1, sRF(t)};
a receiver comprising three receiving antennas for receiving a received signal {Fig.5 RX1 with antenna 6, yRF,T(t); Fig.16 (RX1, RX2, RX3); col.3 line 35 (reception antenna 6)}; and
an electronic unit {Fig.3 items 40 (computing unit), 50 (system controller); Fig.5 item 40 (DSP) } that is designed to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, as modified above, Meissner (‘903) discloses that A computer program product, comprising commands, which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method { Fig.3 items 40 (computing unit); Fig.5 item 40 (DSP); col.4 lines 48-51 (The digital signal processing chain may be implemented at least partly in the form of software that is able to be executed on a processor, for example a microcontroller or a digital signal processor (see FIG. 3, computing unit 40).)} according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2021067461, hereafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) do not explicitly disclose that “the discrete beat signal is at least two-dimensional, and/or wherein at least one first dimension of the discrete beat signal is determined by a number of the sampling values for each frequency ramp in the transmission signal, and wherein at least one second dimension of the discrete beat signal is determined by a number of ramps in the transmission signal”. In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi (‘461) discloses that in the method,
the discrete beat signal is at least two-dimensional { [0033] line 1 (The beat frequency analysis unit 112 outputs the beat frequency response RFT (m, fs))}, and/or
wherein at least one first dimension of the discrete beat signal is determined by a number of the sampling values for each frequency ramp in the transmission signal {[0033] lines 1-3 (The beat frequency analysis unit 112 outputs the beat frequency response RFT (m, fs) specified by the equation (1) from the beat signal obtained by transmitting the mth chirp signal. Here, fs represents the beat frequency index)}, and
wherein at least one second dimension of the discrete beat signal is determined by a number of ramps in the transmission signal {[0033] lines 1-2 (The beat frequency analysis unit 112 outputs the beat frequency response RFT (m, fs) specified by the equation (1) from the beat signal obtained by transmitting the mth chirp signal.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) with the teachings of Yamaguchi (‘461) {express beat signal in two-dimension format, including chirp numbers} to express beat signal in two-dimension format, including chirp numbers. Doing so would provide a capability of supporting detection at a high frame rate so as to shorten data processing time in suppressing interference signal processing, as recognized by Yamaguchi (‘461) {page 1 [0007] line 2 (signal processing method capable of supporting detection at a high frame rate.); page 2 [0016] line 4 (support a high frame rate by shortening the data processing time)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) do not explicitly disclose that “the detection of disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal takes place with the aid of a filter for detecting edges and an iterative adaptive threshold value method”. In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi (‘461) discloses that in the method,
the detection of disrupted sampling values in the discrete beat signal takes place with the aid of a filter for detecting edges and an iterative adaptive threshold value method { Fig.13; [0004] lines 1-3 (a method of suppressing interference, an interference signal is detected by comparing the beat signal and the threshold value using a threshold value set based on the average amplitude calculated from the beat signal which is the difference between the received signal and the transmitted signal); [0099] lines 2-4 (The interference processing unit 111d repeatedly performs the processing of the interference detecting unit 301b and the interference removing unit 304 in the interference processing unit 111b. FIG. 13 is a diagram showing another example of the configuration of the interference processing unit 111d); [0100] lines 1-3 (First, the interference detection unit 301d divides the input discrete sampling data d (m, n) into NAD time domains, obtains a PP value for each area, and determines the maximum PP value. Obtained as the target PP value Ipp # Target.); [0101] lines 1-2 (The interference detection unit 301d determines whether or not there is interference with respect to the determination target PP value Ipp # Target, if there is interference); Examiner’s note: “the average amplitude calculated” and “Obtained as the target PP value” for “an iterative adaptive threshold value”. “interference detection unit 301d” for “a filter”. “if there is interference” for “detecting edges”.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) with the teachings of Yamaguchi (‘461) {repeatedly perform processing of interference detection with threshold determined based on measurement} to repeatedly perform processing of interference detection with threshold determined based on measurement. Doing so would adjust the interference detection performance based on measurement so as to improve the interference detection performance, as recognized by Yamaguchi (‘461) {[0042] lines 4-5 (adjusts the interference detection performance.); [0044] line 6 (the interference detection performance can be expected to be improved); [0079] lines 3-4 (detect the interference that occurs, it is expected that the interference detection performance will be improved)}.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mason et al. (E. Mason, B. Yonel and B. Yazici, "Deep learning for radar," 2017 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf), Seattle, WA, USA, 2017, pp. 1703-1708, doi: 10.1109/RADAR.2017.7944481, hereafter Mason).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) disclose that in the method,
a method for compressed sensing is used during the reconstruction of the spectrum {Fig.9C; Fig.14; Examiner’s note: FFT is a “a method for compressed sensing”. “filtered range Doppler map” in Fig.14 for “reconstruct a spectrum”}, and/or
.
However, Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) do not explicitly disclose “the reconstruction of the spectrum is carried out using an iterative gradient descent method”. In the same field of endeavor, Mason (‘NPL) discloses that
the reconstruction of the spectrum is carried out using an iterative gradient descent method {Page 3 right column below “A. Network architecture” lines 11-12 (an iterative reconstruction algorithm), 17 (where a gradient descent step)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) with the teachings of Mason (‘NPL) {use an iterative reconstruction algorithm with gradient descent step} to use an iterative reconstruction algorithm with gradient descent step. Doing so would provide reconstructed image without distortion due to measurement errors, as recognized by Mason (‘NPL) {page 1703 right column lines 7-9 from bottom (error or unknowns in the radar forward model. Phase errors occur for many reasons and lead to distortions in the reconstructed image)}.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roger et al. (US 20170131394, hereafter Roger).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) do not explicitly disclose that “a method is used for reconstructing the spectrum: a basis pursuit reconstruction method, an iterative soft thresholding reconstruction method, an iterative hard thresholding reconstruction method, an orthogonal matching pursuit reconstruction method, an approximate message passing reconstruction method, an adaptive thresholding for compressed sensing reconstruction method (IMATCS), or a YALL1 reconstruction method”. In the same field of endeavor, Roger (‘394) discloses that in the method,
an orthogonal matching pursuit reconstruction method,
{[0039] lines 2 (reconstruction), 7 (Range-Doppler map), 9-10 (Orthogonal Matching Pursuit for Sparse Signal Recovery With Noise)}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Meissner (‘903) and Wennersten (‘752) with the teachings of Roger (‘394) {use Orthogonal Matching Pursuit method in reconstruction} to use Orthogonal Matching Pursuit method in reconstruction. Doing so would provide an optimization algorithm in range-doppler map reconstruction with minimum residual error so as to achieve desired accuracy, as recognized by Roger (‘394) {[0028] line 4 (the desired accuracy); [0038] lines 21-22 (using optimization algorithms which are as such known and which aim at a minimization of the residual error); [0039] line 12 (Range-Doppler map X(nm) has been reconstructed)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi (‘461) also discloses that “a method for compressed sensing is used during the reconstruction of the spectrum” {[0032] lines 1-2 (By applying the FFT process to the beat signal d (m, n), the beat frequency analysis unit 112 outputs a frequency spectrum in which a peak appears at the beat frequency according to the delay time of the radar reflected wave); Examiner’s note: FFT is a “a method for compressed sensing”}, which further support the rejection of claim 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648