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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 and 05/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,9-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dafesh et al. (US 20230261693 A1), hereinafter Dafesh, in view of Meissner et al. (US 11592520 B2), hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Dafesh discloses [Note: what Dafesh fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A radar system (see receiver 10 in Fig. 1A; further see paragraph 0110, “Receiver 10 illustrated in FIG. 1A can include, but is not limited to, a global navigation satellite system receiver (GNSS) such as GPS, Glonass, Compass, or Galileo, a cellular wireless communications receiver, a WiFi, Bluetooth, or other radio frequency receiver, or a radar receiver or satellite communication system receiver.”) comprising:
communication circuitry configured to transmit radar signals and to receive reflections of the transmitted radar signals reflected by an object in an environment of the radar system (see receiver 10 in Fig. 1A; further see paragraph 0110, “Receiver 10 illustrated in FIG. 1A can include, but is not limited to, a global navigation satellite system receiver (GNSS) such as GPS, Glonass, Compass, or Galileo, a cellular wireless communications receiver, a WiFi, Bluetooth, or other radio frequency receiver, or a radar receiver or satellite communication system receiver.”, where a radar receiver includes “communication circuitry configured to transmit radar signals and to receive reflections of the transmitted radar signals reflected by an object in an environment”); and
processing circuitry (see Fig. 1A, Interference Reduction Circuit 100 coupled with Signal Processor 13) configured to:
generate a spectrogram by converting samples of the reflections into a time- frequency domain (see Fig. 2C which is the generation of a spectrogram, further see paragraph 0105, “For example, the present circuits and methods can use any suitable combination of one or more of the interference reduction circuits or methods provided herein, optionally in combination with one or more previously known interference reduction circuits or methods that process received I/Q samples in the time, frequency spatial hybrid or other domain, so as to provide an output that includes the desired signal with reduced contribution from the interference signal.”);
determine a plurality of interference thresholds, including a respective interference threshold for each frequency bin of the spectrogram (see Fig. 2C where a plurality of thresholds are used TH1 and TH2 these thresholds are applied to “a respective interference threshold for each frequency bin of the spectrogram”; furthermore paragraph 0255 discloses “Alternatively, this can be used as an initial threshold and iteratively changed so as to optimize, for example, received signal to noise ratio or C/No.”, where iteratively changing the threshold is indeed also “determine a plurality of interference thresholds”);
identify interfered cells of the spectrogram based on the plurality of interference thresholds (see paragraph 0174, “Illustratively, the first threshold can be selected such that for amplitude residuals above the threshold, the expected performance of the interference suppression algorithm can produce a more degraded output signal than by not disabling the input to the interference suppression algorithm when the threshold is exceeded. Additionally, the first threshold can be selected such that for amplitude residuals less than or equal to the threshold, the expected performance of the suppression algorithm can be improved relative to the case of not thresholding the input based on the amplitude residual.”, where interference suppression inherently “identifies interference cells” to perform the interference suppression, further see paragraph 0255, Alternatively, this can be used as an initial threshold and iteratively changed so as to optimize, for example, received signal to noise ratio or C/No.”, where adjusting the thresholds to optimize the signal to noise ratio is indeed “identify interfered cells of the spectrogram based on the plurality of interference thresholds”);
determine adjusting factors for the interfered cells based on at least the plurality of interference thresholds and magnitudes of the interfered cells (see paragraph 0244, “In some embodiments, the threshold can be selected to be a predetermined level above the interference free bins (for example, 10 times the average magnitude of such bins or can be determined by first measuring the average magnitude of such bins in an interference free environment, and then scaling the threshold according to the ADC attenuation resulting from automatic gain control. As such, the threshold can be optimally set as a function of the interference-to-signal power ratio. Another approach is to set the threshold based on the average of the outer bins, with the assumption that such bins are interference free, such as can be the case for matched spectral interference. As another approach, the threshold can be scaled by the receiver's estimate of the interference to noise ratio or interference to signal ratio.”, further see paragraph 0249, “Method 400 also includes thresholding nonzero frequency FFT magnitude values exceeding a threshold based on the interference to noise level (step 43) and adjusting thresholded bins to the average interference free bin level (step 44), e.g., as described above with reference to Equations 9 and 10.”, where adjusting the thresholded bins to the average interference free bin level utilizes “adjusting factors” to perform the reduction);
generate an interference-suppressed spectrogram by applying the (see paragraph 0249, “Method 400 also includes thresholding nonzero frequency FFT magnitude values exceeding a threshold based on the interference to noise level (step 43) and adjusting thresholded bins to the average interference free bin level (step 44), e.g., as described above with reference to Equations 9 and 10.”, where adjusting the thresholded bins to the average interference free bin level utilizes “factors” to perform the reduction); and
generate interference-suppressed samples based on the interference-suppressed spectrogram (see Fig. 4B, step 403 generate output signal with reduced contribution from interference signal).
Meissner discloses,
determine scaling factors for the interfered cells based on at least the plurality of interference thresholds and magnitudes of the interfered cells (Col. 14, lines 45-56, “FIG. 14 illustrates a possible implementation of the general structure from FIG. 12. According to the example from FIG. 13, an interpolation according to equation (8) is used as an approximation. This means that each sample previously identified as errored (cf. FIG. 11, block 42) is replaced with the mean value of the two immediately adjacent samples, and the mean value is scaled with the scaling factor c.sub.s (for s=1, 2, 3, 4), where c.sub.s is a constant parameter for each sub-band which is dependent on the respective sub-band (e.g. on its center frequency ω.sub.s). The corrected sub-band signal sequences y.sub.n,1′[m], y.sub.n,2′[m], y.sub.n,3′[m] and y.sub.n,4′[m] can be combined (e.g. added together) as shown in FIG. 13.”, where equations 10 and 11 discloses how the scaling factor is calculated),
generate an interference-suppressed spectrogram by applying the scaling factors to the interfered cells to reduce the magnitudes of the interfered cells Col. 14, lines 45-56, “FIG. 14 illustrates a possible implementation of the general structure from FIG. 12. According to the example from FIG. 13, an interpolation according to equation (8) is used as an approximation. This means that each sample previously identified as errored (cf. FIG. 11, block 42) is replaced with the mean value of the two immediately adjacent samples, and the mean value is scaled with the scaling factor c.sub.s (for s=1, 2, 3, 4), where c.sub.s is a constant parameter for each sub-band which is dependent on the respective sub-band (e.g. on its center frequency ω.sub.s). The corrected sub-band signal sequences y.sub.n,1′[m], y.sub.n,2′[m], y.sub.n,3′[m] and y.sub.n,4′[m] can be combined (e.g. added together) as shown in FIG. 13.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Meissner into the invention of Dafesh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system which implements interference reduction in received signals. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently remove the effects of interference from a received signal without removing all data from the interfering bins.
Regarding claim 2, Dafesh further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the spectrogram by performing a Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) on the samples of the reflections (see paragraph 0243, “Note that a transform alternatively can be implemented using a cosine transform, short time Fourier transform, or related time/frequency transform in at least one non-linear amplitude domain. Additionally, although use of overlapping FFTs or windowing is not specifically described herein, it should be understood that such techniques suitably can be employed in the nonlinear amplitude domain processing provided herein.”).
Regarding claim 3, Dafesh further discloses
The radar system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the interference-suppressed samples by performing an inverse STFT on the interference-suppressed spectrogram (see paragraph 0239, “In some embodiments of the present invention, suppression of the interference signal within a received signal includes transforming the received signal from the domain of A to the domain of A.sup.2 (or other suitable non-linear amplitude domain), then applying a notch filter to remove one or more nonzero frequency components. Alternatively, the input I/Q samples can be directly converted to the domain of A.sup.2, after which a notch filter can be applied in the domain of A.sup.2. Another alternative would be to remove nonzero interference using a fast Fourier transform (FFT), apply a threshold, and inverse FFT (iFFT) in the A.sup.2 or other nonlinear domain.”, where when using a STFT as disclosed in paragraph 0243, an inverse STFT would be used to apply the inverse FFT as disclosed in paragraph 0239).
Regarding claim 4, Dafesh further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein to identify the interfered cells, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that a first magnitude of a first interfered cell of the interfered cells is greater than a first interference threshold of the plurality of interference thresholds determined for a first frequency bin that includes the first interfered cell (see Fig. 2C, further see paragraph 0180, “Denote the input sample amplitude as “A.sub.k” to arithmetic circuit 216, and denote the output of arithmetic circuit 216 as “A.sub.l′”. Arithmetic circuit 216 can be configured to use a first threshold (TH1) to determine the allowable deviation between the amplitude of the input sample amplitude A.sub.k and the average amplitude of the received signal, e.g., the k.sub.th estimate of the interference signal under the approximation of Equation (4). The k.sup.th amplitude residual after subtraction can be expressed as R.sub.k, and the kth output, denoted here as A.sub.k′, can be set to R.sub.k based upon the absolute value of the kth amplitude residual being less than TH1.”).
Regarding claim 5, Dafesh further discloses
The radar system of claim 4, wherein, to identify the interfered cells, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that a second magnitude of a second interfered cell of the interfered cells is greater than a second interference threshold of the plurality of interference thresholds determined for a second frequency bin that includes the second interfered cell (see Fig. 2C, further see paragraph 0195, “Based upon the input amplitude A being less than a second threshold TH2, then that input amplitude can be, after an optional delay (corresponding to the optional delay of the signal A.sub.d, residual R.sub.o), passed to the output. For example, TH2 can be set such that based upon the interference being sufficiently low, suppression is not necessary for that input amplitude value. Based upon the absolute value of the residual R.sub.i being less than the first threshold TH1, then the amplitude can be input into the averaging circuit, and after an optional delay (corresponding to the optional delay of the signal A.sub.d,) residual R.sub.o can be passed to the output Y for further processing.”).
Regarding claim 9, Dafesh discloses [Note: what Dafesh fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The radar system of claim 1,
Meissner discloses,
wherein each of the scaling factors has a respective value of between 0 and 1 (Col. 14, lines 45-56, “FIG. 14 illustrates a possible implementation of the general structure from FIG. 12. According to the example from FIG. 13, an interpolation according to equation (8) is used as an approximation. This means that each sample previously identified as errored (cf. FIG. 11, block 42) is replaced with the mean value of the two immediately adjacent samples, and the mean value is scaled with the scaling factor c.sub.s (for s=1, 2, 3, 4), where c.sub.s is a constant parameter for each sub-band which is dependent on the respective sub-band (e.g. on its center frequency ω.sub.s). The corrected sub-band signal sequences y.sub.n,1′[m], y.sub.n,2′[m], y.sub.n,3′[m] and y.sub.n,4′[m] can be combined (e.g. added together) as shown in FIG. 13.”, where equations 10 and 11 discloses how the scaling factor is calculated and the scaling factor of 1/c is a value between 0 and 1).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Meissner into the invention of Dafesh. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system which implements interference reduction in received signals. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently remove the effects of interference from a received signal without removing all data from the interfering bins.
Regarding claim 10, Dafesh further discloses
The radar system of claim 1, wherein non-interfered cells of the spectrogram are unchanged when generating the interference-suppressed spectrogram (see paragraph 0206, “Alternatively, or additionally, one or more adaptive linear time domain filters can be used to mitigate interference having an envelope that varies in time and produces non-zero frequency components in the amplitude domain (non-constant envelope)”, where “non-zero frequency components” indicates that only the cells affected by interferences apply the mitigation interference technique).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, the feature of Dafesh of iteratively determining the thresholds to optimize the signal to noise ratio of the received signal in view of Meissner fulfills the feature of determining, the plurality of interference thresholds, the comparing of the thresholds and determining the plurality of scaling factors (i.e. first scaling factor and second scaling factor) to adjust the interference signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 16-17 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:
In reference to dependent claims 6-8, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed 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 6-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poddar et al. (US 20240069152 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses techniques for interference mitigation in radar signals.
Aberl et al. (US 20230231753 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses techniques for interference mitigation by identifying specific frequency bins affected by interference and adjusting those cells.
MELZER et al. (US 20190242972 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it identifies interference affected bins in the received radar signal and then performs a smoothing operation to reduce the interference across those bins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights