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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurrant et al. (US 2015/0134288 A1), hereinafter Kurrant.
Regarding claim 1, Kurrant teaches,
A method for operating a radar sensor for distance measurement (para. 0003, “Using Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) pulses to provide a non-invasive means of extracting properties of hidden structures is evolving into a promising technology. The basic approach is to transmit a short-duration electromagnetic wave into an object or structure of interest and then measure the backscattered fields that arise due to dielectric contrasts at interfaces. The time-of-arrival between reflections and the amplitude of the reflections may be used to infer the geometrical and dielectric properties of hidden structures or objects. For example, ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been used to determine the vertical structure of a roadway and for the characterization of snow cover in terms of depth and density of the layers.), comprising: emitting a transmitted signal from the radar sensor (para. 0026, “In one embodiment, a short-duration electromagnetic wave may be transmitted into an object or structure of interest”); receiving a receive signal at the radar sensor (para. 0026, “the backscattered fields that arise due to dielectric contrasts at interfaces may be measured”), the receive signal having a temporally extended amplitude profile including at least a first reflection pulse with a first receive time and a first amplitude and a second reflection pulse with a second receive time and a second amplitude (para. 0026, “For electrically thin layers, the limited bandwidth of the illuminating signal typically gives rise to overlapping reflections.” See also para. 0045, “This technique may be referred to as a "reflection data decomposition algorithm." The technique is applied to the recorded reflection signal and decomposes the signal into M components by estimating the TOA and scaling factor of the reflection that arises from each interface.” See also figs. 8A-10B); in a detection step, determining a first determined receive time and a first determined amplitude from the receive signal as approximate values for the first receive time and the first amplitude of the first reflection pulse (para. 0048, “A first iterative look is described in block 204, where the reference signal is used to find the dominant peak in the spectrum of the reflected data in order to estimate the time-of-arrival and scaling factor of the dominant reflection. Since the reference signal is used to model reflections, the scaled and time-shifted version of the reference is used to estimate the reflection off the first interface.”), determining a second determined receive time and a second determined amplitude as approximate values for the second receive time and the second amplitude of the second reflection pulse (para. 0048, “At block 208 the reference signal is used to find the dominant peak in the spectrum of the residual reflected data (i.e., total reflected data with the estimate of the first reflection removed) in order to estimate the time-of-arrival and scaling factor of the reflection from the second interface.”), and determining distance information from the first determined receive time and the second determined receive time (para. 0025, “The present embodiments may have broader applicability in estimation of layer thickness in structures consisting of multiple layers.” The examiner notes that determining layer thickness for a layered material necessitates determining wave travel distance); wherein the detection step includes: determining a reference reflection pulse with a reference amplitude, a reference receive time and a reference intensity curve (par. 0048, “At block 202, the method 200 includes choosing a reference signal from a group of received reflection signals.” See also figs.. 8Z-10C, which show that the reference signals have an amplitude, time, and intensity curve. See also para. 0064, “The reference signal, r(nTs), may be constructed by scaling and time-shifting a reflection from a dielectric slab. The scaling is adjusted so the positive maxima of the reference signal and the received reflection data are equivalent. The resulting signal is then time-shifted so the positive maxima of the reference signal and the reflection data coincide.”); in an initial detection step, setting an initial maximum as a value for the first determined amplitude and setting an initial receive time as a value for the first determined receive time (para. 0048, “A first iterative look is described in block 204, where the reference signal is used to find the dominant peak in the spectrum of the reflected data in order to estimate the time-of-arrival and scaling factor of the dominant reflection. Since the reference signal is used to model reflections, the scaled and time-shifted version of the reference is used to estimate the reflection off the first interface.”); in a first partial detection step, generating a difference receive signal in that the reference reflection pulse with the first determined amplitude as the reference amplitude and with the first determined receive time as the reference receive time is subtracted from the receive signal (para. 0048, “At block 206 the estimate of the first reflection is removed from the total reflected data”) and the second determined receive time and the second determined amplitude are determined from the difference receive signal by means of peak detection (para. 0048, “At block 208 the reference signal is used to find the dominant peak in the spectrum of the residual reflected data (i.e., total reflected data with the estimate of the first reflection removed) in order to estimate the time-of-arrival and scaling factor of the reflection from the second interface.”); and in a second partial detection step, generating the difference receive signal is generated in that the reference reflection pulse with the second determined amplitude as the reference amplitude and with the second determined receive time as the reference receive time is subtracted from the receive signal and the first determined receive time and the first determined amplitude are determined from the difference receive signal by means of peak detection (para. 0048, “The estimate of the second reflection is then removed from the total reflected data at block 210. At block 212, the loop continues to iteratively refine the estimates by using the spectrum of the residual reflected data and the corrected spectrum of the first two reflections until there is no change in the values of the estimates.”).
Regarding claim 2, Kurrant teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first partial detection step and the second partial detection step are carried out in several iterations in succession (fig. 2, step 212).
Regarding claim 3, Kurrant teaches,
The method according to claim 2, wherein the iterations are aborted if at least one of: (i) the change in the first determined receive time from one iteration step to the next iteration step falls below a predetermined limit; and (ii) the change in the second determined receive time from one iteration step to the next iteration step falls below a predetermined limit (para. 0048, “At block 212, the loop continues to iteratively refine the estimates by using the spectrum of the residual reflected data and the corrected spectrum of the first two reflections until there is no change in the values of the estimates.” The examiner notes that the estimates are the time and amplitude of the peak).
Regarding claim 4, Kurrant teaches,
The method according to claim 2, wherein the iterations are terminated when a measure associated with the difference receive signal falls below a limit value; and wherein the measure associated with the difference receive signal and the limit value relating thereto is a performance measure of the difference receive signal (para. 0040, noting that F1 is obtained by minimizing the nonlinear least-squares criterion).
Regarding claim 6, Kurrant teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein in the initial detection step, the initial maximum in the amplitude curve of the receive signal and its initial receive time are determined and the initial maximum is set as the value for the first determined amplitude and the initial receive time is set as the value for the first determined receive time; and wherein the absolute maximum in the amplitude response of the receive signal is used as the initial maximum (para. 0048, “A first iterative look is described in block 204, where the reference signal is used to find the dominant peak in the spectrum of the reflected data in order to estimate the time-of-arrival and scaling factor of the dominant reflection. Since the reference signal is used to model reflections, the scaled and time-shifted version of the reference is used to estimate the reflection off the first interface.” The examiner notes that scaling the reference signal involves changing its maximum and time-shifting it involves changing its receive time. See, e.g., fig. 2, step 204 and para. 0064, “The scaling is adjusted so the positive maxima of the reference signal and the received reflection data are equivalent. The resulting signal is then time-shifted so the positive maxima of the reference signal and the reflection data coincide.”).
Regarding claim 11, Kurrant teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein a number n of the reflection pulses contained in the receive signal is determined; wherein, in the initial detection step, n−1 initial maxima in the amplitude profile of the receive signal and their initial receive times are determined (fig. 3, step 302), and the initial maxima are set as values for the determined amplitudes and the initial receive times are set as values for the determined receive times (fig. 3, step 304); and wherein a corresponding number of n partial detection steps is carried out in the detection step, wherein, in the i-th partial detection step, all n−1 reference reflection pulses except for the i-th reference reflection pulse are subtracted from the receive signal and the i-th determined receive time and the i-th determined amplitude are determined from the difference receive signal by means of peak detection (fig. 3, steps 306-314).
Claim 12 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1, noting that Kurrant teaches a radar sensor for distance measurement comprising a transmitting element for transmitting a transmit signal and a receiving element for receiving a receive signal (para. 0027, “A sensor 104 and source 102 may be co-located near an object 106 the thin outer layer 108 and layer 110 is sandwiched between 108 and 112. The source 102 illuminates the object 106 with a pulse of electromagnetic (EM) or acoustic energy, and the sensor 104 records the resulting backscattered fields. In an embodiment, the sensor 104 and the source 102 may be integrated into a single antenna with attached transmitter and receiver components, including filters for separating transmitted signals from received signals.” The examiner notes that paras. 0003-0004 indicate that the sensor of fig. 1 can be a UWB radar).
Claim 13 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurrant in view of Liu et al. (US 2012/0092210 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 5, Kurrant teaches the method according to claim 2. Kurrant does not teach,
…wherein the iterations are aborted when a measure associated with a complete difference receive signal falls below a limit value; wherein the complete difference receive signal is obtained in that the reference reflection pulse with the first determined amplitude as the reference amplitude and with the first determined receive time as the reference time is subtracted from the receive signal and that the reference reflection pulse with the second determined amplitude as reference amplitude and with the second determined receive time as reference receive time is subtracted from the receive signal; and wherein the measure associated with the complete difference receive signal and the limit value with respect thereto is a power measure of the complete difference receive signal.
Liu teaches,
…wherein the iterations are aborted when a measure associated with a complete difference receive signal falls below a limit value (paras. 0038-0039, “After having removed the k strongest estimated echoes from the original echo profile, an estimation error is determined, as indicated in step 24. Here, for example, the estimation error is determined as the mean squared error of the remaining echo profile in the region of the estimated echo. A checked is performed to determine whether a stop criterion is fulfilled, as indicated in step 25. This stop criterion may be satisfied when the error reaches a given minimum or, in the course of the following steps, converges to a constant value.”); wherein the complete difference receive signal is obtained in that the reference reflection pulse with the first determined amplitude as the reference amplitude and with the first determined receive time as the reference time is subtracted from the receive signal and that the reference reflection pulse with the second determined amplitude as reference amplitude and with the second determined receive time as reference receive time is subtracted from the receive signal (paras. 0036-0037, “The identified echo, i.e., the matching reference echo, is subtracted from the echo profile, as indicated in step 22. Steps 21 and 22 are repeated (k-1) times to estimate the (k-1) next strongest echoes in the echo profile, as indicated in step 23.”); and wherein the measure associated with the complete difference receive signal and the limit value with respect thereto is a power measure of the complete difference receive signal (para. 0018, “After having removed the estimated echoes from the original echo amplitude profile, the remaining echo profile contains, in the region of the removed estimated echoes noise, disturbances and an estimation error between the non-corrupted echoes and the estimated echoes. The estimation error may be determined as the mean squared error of the remaining echo profile.” The examiner notes that power is proportional to amplitude squared, so calculating mean squared error is a power measure).
Kurrant and Liu are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kurrant with the complete difference signal of Liu because the complete difference signal of Liu offers a second way to check the validity of the final peak estimate, thus increasing the accuracy of a finalized peak detection.
Regarding claim 8, Kurrant teaches the method according to claim 1. Kurrant further implies that the reference reflection can be received in the deployed environment (para. 0081, “A reference signal generated from a dielectric slab with the same properties as layer 1 may be used by the algorithm for these examples.”). However, Kurrant does not explicitly teach,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is received by the radar sensor in the configured deployment environment
Liu teaches,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is received by the radar sensor in the configured deployment environment (para. 0034, “Alternatively, the reference echo may be derived from an echo 11' (see FIG. 1) that is received from a reference target 19 and analyzed to determine a number of significant shape parameters.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kurrant with the reference pulse detection of Liu because using an echo from a reference target to calibrate a reference pulse for a radar device is a common technique in the art that enables the radar sensor to take into account changes in the deployed environment (e.g., temperature).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Kurrant teaches the radar sensor according to claim 12. Kurrant does not teach,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is received by the radar sensor in the configured deployment environment; and wherein the reference reflection pulse is determined for different measured distance information and the reference reflection pulse having the best correlation with the distance information in the specific measurement situation is used to carry out the method.
Liu teaches,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is received by the radar sensor in the configured deployment environment (para. 0034, “Alternatively, the reference echo may be derived from an echo 11' (see FIG. 1) that is received from a reference target 19 and analyzed to determine a number of significant shape parameters.”); and wherein the reference reflection pulse is determined for different measured distance information (fig. 2, steps 21-23. The examiner notes that the echo profile determination for each estimated strongest echo is determining a reference pulse for different measured distance information since the reference reflection is fitted to each pulse, and per para. 0035, “The identified echo is defined by the amplitude and position of the matching reference echo.”) and the reference reflection pulse having the best correlation with the distance information in the specific measurement situation is used to carry out the (fig. 2, steps 24-27, noting that the reference reflection pulse is modified and reevaluated until a stop criterial is fulfilled, indicating that steps 20-27 are carried out until the reference reflection pulse with the best correlation to the distance information, i.e., the locations of each echo, is determined).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar sensor of Kurrant with the reference reflection reception in the configured deployment environment because using an echo from a reference target to calibrate a reference pulse for a radar device is a common technique in the art that enables the radar sensor to take into account changes in the deployed environment (e.g., temperature).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurrant in view of Rosemount 5300 Series (Rosemount 5300 Series (June 2007). Rosemount. https://www.instrumart.com/assets/5300-Manual.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqPGnm8vDgWKjfQI7M6-QdnCHdjwCIKncj8aXq9oo4tRhL9qBUb. [Reference Manual]), hereinafter Rosemount.
Regarding claim 7, Kurrant teaches the method according to claim 1. Kurrant further teaches appropriate structures for storing a reference reflection pulse (para. 0053, “For example, memory 402 may be used to store software program and/or database shown in FIGS. 8-9.”). However, Kurrant does not teach,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse has been stored in the radar sensor and is only read out; and wherein a plurality of reference reflection pulses have been stored in the radar sensor, for different media in the path of the transmitted signal
Rosemount teaches,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse has been stored in the radar sensor and is only read out; and wherein a plurality of reference reflection pulses have been stored in the radar sensor, for different media in the path of the transmitted signal (p. C-8, “Click the Dielectric Constant Chart button if you want to search for the dielectric constant of a certain product. It is important that this value is as accurate as possible, since the Dielectric Constant is one of the key parameters that the transmitter uses when calculating the position of the product surface” The examiner notes that p. C-6 states, “When this check box is selected, the transmitter automatically sets the Surface threshold to a constant value based on the configured Dielectric Constant of the product,” indicating that the dielectric constant results in a modified reference amplitude. Thus, storing a plurality of dielectric constants results in storing a plurality of reference reflection pulses).
Rosemount is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kurrant with the stored reference reflection pulses of Rosemount because the dielectric constant of the materials affect their reflectivity, and thus the expected peak height.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurrant in view of Rosemount and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Kurrant in view of Rosemount teaches the method according to claim 7. Neither Kurrant nor Rosemount teaches,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is determined for different measured distance information and the reference reflection pulse having the best correlation with the distance information in the specific measurement situation is used to carry out the method.
Liu teaches,
…wherein the reference reflection pulse is determined for different measured distance information (fig. 2, steps 21-23. The examiner notes that the echo profile determination for each estimated strongest echo is determining a reference pulse for different measured distance information since the reference reflection is fitted to each pulse, and per para. 0035, “The identified echo is defined by the amplitude and position of the matching reference echo.”) and the reference reflection pulse having the best correlation with the distance information in the specific measurement situation is used to carry out the method (fig. 2, steps 24-27, noting that the reference reflection pulse is modified and reevaluated until a stop criterial is fulfilled, indicating that steps 20-27 are carried out until the reference reflection pulse with the best correlation to the distance information, i.e., the locations of each echo, is determined).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radar sensor of Kurrant with the reference reflection reception determination for different measured distance information of Liu because increasing the accuracy of the peak estimation, as discussed by Liu in para. 0009.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kurrant is the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Liu and Rosemount are also close prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Kurrant teaches the method according to claim 1. However, Kurrant does not teach,
…wherein at least a first and a second reference reflection pulse each having a reference amplitude, a reference receive time and a reference intensity curve are determined; and wherein the first reference reflection pulse is used in the first partial detection step and the second reference reflection pulse is used in the second partial detection step.
In para. 0090, Kurrant notes that the discrepancy between the estimated and ground truth waveform shapes that arises due to a difference between the reference reflection and actual pulse shape, but also states that, “the effect that this phenomenon has on the TOA estimate is marginal.” Although Kurrant does suggest that the phenomenon could be important if an accurate estimation of the first two reflections is desired, Kurrant does not teach or render obvious using two different reference reflection pulses for the first and second partial detection steps. Both Liu and Rosemount fail to correct for the deficiencies in Kurrant.
In reference to claim 10, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648