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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 and 07/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 7 and 18 and therefore their dependent claims 8 and 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.
Claims 7 and 18 recites the limitations “λ”, “Tc1”, and “Tc2”. While these variables are defined elsewhere in the claims, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the variables “λ”, “Tc1”, and “Tc2” have the same or alternate definitions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the variable “λ” as ‘wavelength’, “Tc1” as ‘duration of the first chirp signal’, and “Tc2” as ‘duration of the second chirp signal’. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asanuma (US 20170123059 A1), hereinafter Asanuma.
Regarding claim 1, Asanuma discloses a method for measuring a relative velocity (See at least [0042] “The radar device 1 of the present embodiment uses an FCM (Fast Chirp Modulation) system, and a method of computing distance and relative velocity in the FCM system will be first described”)between a radar sensor and a radar reflector by a controller component (See at least Fig. 2, [0038] “The radar device 1 according to the embodiments can be mounted on a vehicle and be used to detect targets existing around the vehicle”,) , comprising:
causing the radar sensor to transmit a first chirp signal and a second chirp signal toward the radar reflector (See at least Figs. 13-14, [0042] “The radar device 1 generates a transmission signal (chirps) ST […] and transmits the transmission signal through the transmitting antenna 7.”, [0043] “Thereafter, the radar device 1 receives reflected waves from a target, as reception signals SR, through the receiving antennae 3”), wherein a duration of the first chirp signal is different from a duration of the second chirp signal (See at least Figs. 13-14, The Examiner notes ST1 may correspond to a first chirp and ST2 may correspond to a second chirp);
causing the radar sensor to receive a first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal and a second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal (See at least Fig. 1, [0043] “Thereafter, the radar device 1 receives reflected waves from a target, as reception signals SR, through the receiving antennae 3”);
determining a first velocity based on the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal (See at least Fig. 14, [0117] “In STEP S240, the processor 6 extracts the first chirps ST1 based on the first parameter from the reception signals […] obtaining a first distance and a first relative velocity”);
determining a second velocity based on the second chirp signal and the second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal (See at least Fig. 14, [0117] “STEP S250, the processor 6 extracts the second chirps ST2 based on the second parameter from the reception signals […] obtaining a second distance and a second relative velocity”); and
determining the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector by comparing the first velocity and the second velocity (See at least Fig. 14, [0119] “the processor 6 selects a distance and a relative velocity having the highest accuracy (the highest resolution) from distances and relative velocities in which aliasing has not occurred, and outputs them”).
Regarding claim 6, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma additionally discloses
in an instance that the first velocity is substantially equal to the second velocity, determining the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector is equal to the first velocity (See at least [0119] “STEP S270, the processor 6 selects a distance and a relative velocity having the highest accuracy (the highest resolution) from distances and relative velocities” Asanuma discloses selecting velocity based on resolution, therefore if the first and second velocities are substantially equal Asanuma would select a velocity equal to the first velocity. Additionally, the claim recites “in an instance” which refers to a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Also MPEP 2111.04 (II) regarding contingent limitations).
Regarding claim 7, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma additionally discloses
in an instance that the first velocity is not substantially equal to the second velocity, further comprising: determining a first recalculated velocity (V1p1) based on a following equation:, and determining a second recalculated velocity (V2p2) based on a following equation: wherein Δφ1 is the first phase difference between the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal, Δφ2 is the second phase difference between the second chirp signal and the second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal, k1 is equal to λ4πTc1, k2 is equal to λ4πTc2,and p1 and p2 are integer (Claim 7 recites “in an instance” which refers to a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Also MPEP 2111.04 (II) regarding contingent limitations).
Regarding claim 8, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Asanuma additionally discloses
in an instance that the first recalculated velocity is substantially equal to the second recalculated velocity, the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector is equal to the first recalculated velocity (The claim recites “in an instance” which refers to a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Also MPEP 2111.04 (II) regarding contingent limitations).
Regarding claim 9, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma additionally discloses
the radar sensor is attached to an object and the radar reflector is stationary, and a velocity of the object is equal to the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector (See at least [0038] “The radar device 1 according to the embodiments can be mounted on a vehicle and be used to detect targets existing around the vehicle, such as other vehicles, signs, and guard rails”, [0044] “relative velocity computation will be described. In a case where there is a relative velocity between the vehicle and the target”).
Regarding claim 11, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma additionally discloses
the radar sensor comprises: at least one transmitter configured to transmit the first chirp signal and the second chirp signal (See at least Fig. 2, [0042] “transmits the transmission signal through the transmitting antenna 7”); and
at least one receiver configured to receive the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal and the second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal (See at least Fig. 2, [0043] “the radar device 1 receives reflected waves from a target, as reception signals SR, through the receiving antennae 3”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9, shown above.
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 2, 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanuma, in view of Shams (US 20210296764 A1), hereinafter Shams.
Regarding claim 2, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma does not explicitly disclose determining the first velocity based on the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal comprising: determining a first phase difference between the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal; and determining the first velocity based on the first phase difference. However, Shams, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determining the first velocity based on the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal comprising: determining a first phase difference between the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal; and determining the first velocity based on the first phase difference (See at least [0085] “RF signals may be, for example, Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) signals or chirps. An FMCW signal enables the radar system 600 to determine both the range to an object and the object's velocity by measuring the differences in phase or frequency between the transmitted signals and the received/reflected signals”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the relative velocity system disclosed by Asanuma with the phase and velocity system disclosed by Shams. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection and identification (See at least [0060] “improve the target detection and identification performance”).
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanuma.
Regarding Claim 10, Asanuma, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Asanuma, does not explicitly disclose the radar reflector is attached to an object and the radar sensor is stationary, and a velocity of the object is equal to the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector. However, Asanuma discloses
the radar sensor is attached to an object and the radar reflector is stationary, and a velocity of the object is equal to the relative velocity between the radar sensor and the radar reflector (See at least [0038] “The radar device 1 according to the embodiments can be mounted on a vehicle and be used to detect targets existing around the vehicle, such as other vehicles, signs, and guard rails”, [0044] “relative velocity computation will be described. In a case where there is a relative velocity between the vehicle and the target”. The Examiner notes that Asanuma discloses an opposite scenario of the claim where the radar reflector is stationary rather than an attached to an object and the radar sensor is attached to an object rather than stationary. Therefore, it differs from the claimed invention because the parts are reversed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Asanuma so that the reflector is on the is attached to an object and radar sensor is stationary with a reasonable expectation of success. Since it has been held that the mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04. In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400. Regardless of the sensor/reflector arrangement, a relative velocity is measured that is equal to velocity of the moving object. Therefore, it would merely be a reversal of parts to instead mount the radar on a stationary object.)
One would be motivated to make this reversal to improve data gathering by centrally locating data collection at a stationary point.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 3, 5, 14, 16, and 18-19 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 3, 5, 14, 16, and 18. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 3 and similarly claim 14, equation: wherein λ is a wavelength of the first chirp signal, Tc1 is the duration of the first chirp signal, Δφ1 is the first phase difference between the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal, and k1 is equal to λ4πTc1, and in claim 5 and similarly claim 16, equation: wherein λ is a wavelength of the second chirp signal, Tc2 is the duration of the second chirp signal, Δφ2 is the second phase difference between the second chirp signal and the second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal, and k2 is equal to λ4πTc2. as in claim 18, determine a first recalculated velocity (V1p1) based on a following equation:, and determine a second recalculated velocity (V2p2) based on a following equation: wherein Δφ1 is the first phase difference between the first chirp signal and the first reflected chirp signal of the first chirp signal, Δφ2 is the second phase difference between the second chirp signal and the second reflected chirp signal of the second chirp signal, k1 is equal to λ4πTc1, k2 is equal to λ4πTc2,and p1 and p2 are integer.
Accordingly, claims 3, 5, 14, 16, and 18 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claim 19 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 3, 5, 14, 16, and 18-19 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 Examiner notes that claims 18-19 are additionally rejected for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with appropriate correction required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (US 11561299 B1) - A system for radar tracking, preferably including one or more transmitter elements, receiver elements, and signal processors, and optionally including one or more velocity sensing modules. A method for radar tracking, preferably including transmitting probe signals, receiving reflected probe signals, and/or tracking environmental targets, and optionally including decoding the set of received probe signals. The method is preferably implemented using a radar system, but can additionally or alternatively be implemented using any other suitable wave-based detection system.
Lau (US 20210389452 A1) - An autonomous vehicle (AV) includes a radar sensor system and a computing system that computes velocities of an object in a driving environment of the AV based upon radar data that is representative of radar returns received by the radar sensor system. The AV can be configured to compute a first velocity of the object based upon first radar data that is representative of the radar return from a first time to a second time. The AV can further be configured to compute a second velocity of the object based upon second radar data that includes at least a portion of the first radar data and further includes additional radar data representative of a radar return received subsequent to the second time. The AV can further be configured to control one of a propulsion system, a steering system, or a braking system to effectuate motion of the AV based upon the computed velocities.
Zaidi (US 20210003691 A1) - Examples disclosed herein relate to a beam steering radar for use in an autonomous vehicle. The beam steering radar has a radar module with at least one beam steering antenna, a transceiver, and a controller that can cause the transceiver to perform, using the at least one beam steering antenna, a first scan of a field-of-view (FoV) with a first number of chirps in a first radio frequency (RF) signal and a second scan of the FoV with a second number of chirps in a second RF signal. The radar module also has a perception module having a machine learning-trained classifier that can detect objects in a path and surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle based on the first number of chirps in the first RF signal and classify the objects based on the second number of chirps in the second RF signal.
Zhong (US 10852419 B2) - A method for camera radar fusion includes receiving, by the processor, radar object detection data for an object and modeling, by a processor, a three dimensional (3D) physical space kinematic model, including updating 3D coordinates of the object, to generate updated 3D coordinates of the object, in response to receiving the radar object detection data for the object. The method also includes transforming, by the processor, the updated 3D coordinates of the object to updated two dimensional (2D) coordinates of the object, based on a 2D-3D calibrated mapping table and modeling, by the processor, a two dimensional (2D) image plane kinematic model, while modeling the 3D physical space kinematic model, where modeling the 2D image plane kinematic model includes updating coordinates of the object based on the updated 2D coordinates of the object.
Puglielli (US 10775481 B1) - The present disclosure provides a system for processing radar data. The system may comprise a frequency generator configured to generate a reference frequency signal; a timing module configured to generate one or more timing signals; and a plurality of radar modules in communication with the frequency generator and timing module. The radar modules may be configured to: (i) receive the reference frequency signal and the one or more timing signals, (ii) transmit a first set of radar signals based in part on the reference frequency signal and the one or more timing signals, and (iii) receive a second set of radar signals reflected from a surrounding environment. The system may comprise a processor configured to process radar signals received by the plurality of radar modules, by coherently combining radar signals using phase and timestamp information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648