DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/23/2026, has been entered into the record. Claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/23/2026, have been carefully considered by the Examiner.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s argument on p. 9 of the Remarks that Goto fails to teach both limitations added by the Applicant upon amendment. However, this argument is moot because a new reference not cited in the previous Office Action is used to reject said limitations.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues, see p. 9 of the Remarks, that dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are allowable at least due to their dependency on independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. However, for the reasons set out below, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not allowable due to teachings from a new reference not cited in the previous Office Action. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0124983 A1), hereinafter Goto, in view of Alferdaous Alazem et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0350018 A1), hereinafter Alferdaous Alazem.
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches (note: what Goto does not teach is struck through),
A system (fig. 1, optical transmission and reception unit 1 and distance measurement device 2), comprising:
transceiver circuitry (fig. 1, optical transmission and reception unit 1); and
processing circuitry coupled to the transceiver circuitry (fig. 2, distance measurement device. See also para. 0086-0087, “The components of the distance measurement device 2 are not limited to ones each implemented by hardware for exclusive use, and the distance measurement device 2 may be implemented by software, firmware, or a combination of software and firmware. The software or the firmware is stored as a program in a memory of a computer. The computer refers to hardware that executes a program, and is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a central processing device, a processing device, an arithmetic device, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor, or a digital signal processor (DSP).”);
wherein the transceiver circuitry is configured to:
receive signals reflected off an object (fig. 2, condensing optical element 16 receives light reflected off of distance measurement target); and
generate radar data based on the received signals (para. 0105, “The distance measurement device 2 calculates the distance L from the distance measurement device 2 to the distance measurement target on the basis of the digital signal f(t) outputted from the optical transmission and reception unit 1.” See also fig. 2, noting that the reflected light is an input into the data sent via the A/D converter);
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
perform a first Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) operation on the radar data to produce a first set of range data (fig. 1, Fourier Transform Processing Unit 25-1. The examiner notes that, per para. 0114, the shift amount for Frequency Shift Processing Unit 23-1 is taught to be zero);
perform a frequency shift on the radar data (fig. 1, Frequency Shift Processing Units 23-2-N);
perform a second FFT operation on the frequency shifted radar data to produce a second set of range data, (fig. 1, Fourier Transform Processing Units 25-2-N. The examiner notes that performing an FFT on frequency-shifted data typically produces data that is offset in range relative to data that has not been frequency-shifted, but this relationship is not explicitly taught by Goto); and
produce a third set of range data by at least:
collating the first set of range data and a portion of the second set of range data; or
collating a portion of the first set of range data and the second set of range data (fig. 7, maximum frequency from each data set is collated together, i.e. a portion of the first and the second sets of range data),
Alferdaous Alazem teaches,
wherein the second set of range data is offset in range relative to the first set of range data…collating a portion of the first set of range data and the second set of range data, such that the third set of range data includes values corresponding to range-bins from the first set of range data and values corresponding to range-bins from the second set of range data (fig. 5, noting that black circles are offset in range from white circles with which they are collated).
Goto and Alferdaous Alazem are 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 collation of Goto using the technique of Alferdaous Alazem. The only difference between the invention of Goto and the claimed invention is the use of the plural terms “values” and “range bins,” which differentiate claim 1 from Goto’s invention, which takes only one value from each set of frequency-shifted data. However, as taught by Alferdaous Alazem, having multiple objects in a scene is a common occurrence (see, e.g., fig. 1, fig. 2). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the invention of Goto to collate multiple high-magnitude data points from each set of FFT data to enable the identification of multiple objects in a scene.
Regarding claim 2, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem teaches the system of claim 1. Goto further teaches,
…wherein the first FFT operation comprises a first resolution, and wherein the second FFT operation comprises a second resolution (paras. 0115-0116, “In the equations (1), R is the frequency resolution of the signal Fn(f) after the Fourier transform by the Fourier transform processing unit 25-n.”).
Regarding claim 3, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem teaches the system of claim 2. Goto further teaches,
…wherein the first and second resolutions are the same, and wherein the first and second resolutions are based on a desired detection range (PARA. 0118, “The frequency resolution of the shift amounts Δf1 to ΔfN is set in accordance with the frequency resolution R of the signal Fn(f) after the Fourier transform, as shown in the equations (1). More specifically, the frequency resolution of the shift amounts Δf1 to ΔfN is set in accordance with the distance measurement resolution of the distance measurement target.”).
Regarding claim 4, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem teaches the system of claim 1. Goto further teaches,
…wherein the frequency shift includes a shift of the radar data by half of a range-bin (para. 0115, noting that for Frequency Shift Processing Unit 23-(N/2) the frequency shift will be equal to half the resolution of the unshifted Fournier-transformed signal, i.e., half of the unshifted range bin).
Regarding claim 7, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem teaches the system of claim 1. Goto further teaches,
…wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to identify a distance between the transceiver circuitry and the object based on the third set of range data (para. 0146, “The distance calculation processing unit 29 calculates the distance L from the distance measurement device 2 to the distance measurement target”).
Claim 8 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1, noting that Goto further teaches a distance measurement method (para. 0002).
Claim 9 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1, noting that Goto further teaches a radar circuit (fig. 1, optical transmission and reception unit 1 and distance measurement device 2), a buffer (fig. 5, memory 41), and processing circuitry coupled to the buffer (fig. 5, processor 42).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem, and further in view of Emadi et al. (US 2023/0350020 A1), hereinafter Emadi.
Regarding claim 5, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem teaches the system of claim 1. Goto does not teach,
…wherein the portion of the first set of range data comprises data of the first set of range data above a range threshold, and wherein the portion of the second set of range data comprises data of the second set of range data above the range threshold
Emadi teaches,
…wherein the portion of the first set of range data comprises data of the first set of range data above a range threshold, and wherein the portion of the second set of range data comprises data of the second set of range data above the range threshold (para. 0086, “The point is validated by determining the a range threshold based on the change in point range of the point between the previous and current scans and the range difference's relation to the scan time and doppler of the point. In an embodiment, a low value for the range threshold indicates a valid target (e.g., the point is validated), while a high value for the range threshold indicates a false target.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0002, non-validated targets are deemed to be false targets and are removed from radar-produced data. The examiner further notes that the range threshold of Emadi is a range of distances in which the target must fall to be considered a valid point; thus, targets with a measured distance below the minimum of said range of distances would not be considered valid and thus the data would be discarded as that of a false target).
Emadi 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 further modify the radar system of Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem with the range threshold of Emadi. The range threshold of Emadi allows for false targets to be filtered out with minimal computational resources and operational complexity (Emadi, para. 0003). Thus, the range threshold of Emadi would reduce instances of false target detection affecting the range analysis of Goto while conserving computational resources.
Regarding claim 6, Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem and further in view of Emadi teaches the system of claim 5. The previous combination of Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem and further in view of Emadi does not teach,
…wherein to collate the first set of range data and the portion of the second set of range data, the processing circuitry is configured to refrain from using the data of the second set of range data below the range threshold in the third set of range data, and wherein to collate the portion of the first set of range data and the second set of range data, the processing circuitry is configured to refrain from using the data of the first set of range data below the range threshold in the third set of range data
Emadi further teaches,
…wherein to collate the first set of range data and the portion of the second set of range data, the processing circuitry is configured to refrain from using the data of the second set of range data below the range threshold in the third set of range data, and wherein to collate the portion of the first set of range data and the second set of range data, the processing circuitry is configured to refrain from using the data of the first set of range data below the range threshold in the third set of range data (para. 0086, “The point is validated by determining the a range threshold based on the change in point range of the point between the previous and current scans and the range difference's relation to the scan time and doppler of the point. In an embodiment, a low value for the range threshold indicates a valid target (e.g., the point is validated), while a high value for the range threshold indicates a false target.” See also para. 0002, “More specifically, the present embodiments relate to systems, apparatus, and methods for removing noise and false targets from radar-produced data.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the radar system of Goto in view of Alferdaous Alazem with the range thresholding of Emadi. The range thresholding of Emadi allows for false targets to be filtered out with minimal computational resources and operational complexity (Emadi, para. 0003). Refraining from using points identified, based on their range, as false targets in the range analysis of Goto increases the accuracy of the results of said range analysis. Thus, the range threshold of Emadi improves the accuracy of the range analysis of Goto without requiring excessive computational resources.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Conclusion
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 Anna K Benjamin Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, 7-3 Eastern; Friday 8-4 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. Benjamin Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights