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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael et al (US 20070247352) in view of Arakawa et al (US 20220003833).
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 20, Michael teaches a method, comprising: emitting, by a radar sensor, a radio frequency signal into a field of view of the radar sensor (fig 6, items 607 and 608):receiving, by the radar sensor, a reflection of the radio frequency signal (fig 6, item 609 and 615):generating, by the radar sensor, an intermediate frequency (IF) signal based on the received reflection of the radio frequency signal (para 37 and figure 4): determining a harmonic spectrum of the IF signal :an intermediate frequency (IF) signal of a radar sensor (para 37, “the change in the intermediate frequency signal 410 is detectable using spectral analysis via Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT)”); determining an undesired signal component of the IF signal caused by at least one of a crosstalk of the radar sensor or a near-range obstacle in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the harmonic spectrum (para 28, “he periodic input signal 103 transmitted to the VCO 104 producing the output signal 113, is propagated through the mixer 112 and can be detected in the intermediate frequency output signal 114 due to crosstalk”).
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 20, Arakawa teaches determining a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal (para 31). It would have been obvious to modify Michael to include determining a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to remove an undesired signal component of Michael with the method to remove to an undesired signal component of Arakawa to yield a predictable method to remove to an undesired signal component
Regarding claim 2 and 14, Michael teaches determining the calibrated signal comprises attenuating, subtracting or filtering the undesired signal component in the IF signal (para 39, “this crosstalk signal is filtered out of the processed signal or intermediate frequency signal 410 since it does not contain any useful ranging information”).
Claim(s) 3, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Veyrac et al (US 20240027578).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Veyrac teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on a harmonic model of the IF signal (para 73, "produce one-off frequency interference, which may require specific filtering to comply with normative templates (in FIG. 3a, the harmonic leakage is above the emission template)"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on a harmonic model of the IF signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the harmonic spectrum of Michael with the method to determine the harmonic spectrum of Veyrac to yield a predictable method to determine the harmonic spectrum.
Regarding claim 19, Veyrac teaches control circuitry configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the calibrated signal (para 12). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include control circuitry configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the calibrated signal because it would allow the Michael to adjust the transmitted signal based on whether a radome in over the radar device or not.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Visweswaran et al (US 20200264272).
Regarding claim 4 and 16, Visweswaran teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises partitioning the IF signal into a signal subspace and a noise subspace (para 20, "This has the effect of removing the effect of leakage and phase noise at the intermediate frequency."). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises partitioning the IF signal into a signal subspace and a noise subspace because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a received signal of Michael with the method to process a received signal of Visweswaran to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Cao et al (CN103760527A).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Cao teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigen decomposition of an autocorrelation matrix of the IF signal or a singular value decomposition of a data matrix of the IF signal (para 48, " the autocorrelation matrix Ry to eigen decomposition, obtaining noise sub space in step 6, using the noise sub space forming a MUSIC space spectral function"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigen decomposition of an autocorrelation matrix of the IF signal or a singular value decomposition of a data matrix of the IF signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine a harmonic spectrum of Michael with the method to determine a harmonic spectrum of Kale to yield a predictable method to determine a harmonic of a spectrum.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sapohnykov et al (US 20180098152).
Regarding claim 6, Sapohnykov teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigenvalue method rotational invariance technique (para 54). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigenvalue method rotational invariance technique because it is merely a substitution of a well- known method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Michael with the method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Sapohnykov to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20200191939).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum of the IF signal based on a minimum-norm root method in a calibration mode (para 98). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum of the IF signal based on a minimum-norm root method in a calibration mode because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Michael with the method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Wu to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement (para 38, "It is noted that at any given range gate output of FTMF 118, if a target is present, a phase rotation corresponding to the radial velocity of the reflecting target will be present in the filter's outputs. Hence, the spectral domain information observed from multiple PRIs"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches determining a harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal; determining whether the calibrated signal comprises a further free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal (para 38, "It is noted that at any given range gate output of FTMF 118, if a target is present, a phase rotation corresponding to the radial velocity of the reflecting target will be present in the filter's outputs. Hence, the spectral domain information observed from multiple PRIs"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining a harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal; determining whether the calibrated signal comprises a further free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
With respect to claim 11, since updating the determined undesired signal component based on the further free-space measurement is contingent on determining that the calibrated signal comprises the further free-space measurement this feature does not need to be taught by the prior art to read on the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. (SEE MPEP 2111.04)
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa in view of Wu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al (WO 2017156492).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement (para 44, "generating a polynomial equation based on the obtained matrix; and selecting one or more complex roots of the polynomial equation, wherein the one or more breathing rates of one or more living beings are determined based on information related to at least one of angle and phase of the one or more complex roots"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa in view of Wu to include determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement because it is merely a one of multiple implementation of a radar device of Michael in the radar system of Chen to yield a predictable radar system.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches determining whether the one or more roots indicate the free-space measurement comprises determining whether at least one of a complex value, a real value or an imaginary value of the one or more roots is within a predefined value range (para 44, "generating a polynomial equation based on the obtained matrix; and selecting one or more complex roots of the polynomial equation, wherein the one or more breathing rates of one or more living beings are determined based on information related to at least one of angle and phase of the one or more complex roots"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa in view of Wu to include determining whether the one or more roots indicate the free- space measurement comprises determining whether at least one of a complex value, a real value or an imaginary value of the one or more roots is within a predefined value range because it is merely a one of multiple implementation of a radar device of Michael in the radar system of Chen to yield a predictable radar system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 20220003837).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches determining at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal (fig 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal because it is expected that the radar device of Michael would be used to detect object in a field of view.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Arakawa as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20200191939) and Chen et al (WO 2017156492).
Regarding claim 21, Wu teaches determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement (para 38, "It is noted that at any given range gate output of FTMF 118, if a target is present, a phase rotation corresponding to the radial velocity of the reflecting target will be present in the filter's outputs. Hence, the spectral domain information observed from multiple PRIs"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement (para 44, "generating a polynomial equation based on the obtained matrix; and selecting one or more complex roots of the polynomial equation, wherein the one or more breathing rates of one or more living beings are determined based on information related to at least one of angle and phase of the one or more complex roots"). It would have been obvious to modify Michael in view of Arakawa to include determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement because it is merely a one of multiple implementation of a radar device of Michael in the radar system of Chen to yield a predictable radar system.
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 TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights