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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0120499, filed on 09/11/2023.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the specification.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Applicants' amendments/arguments traverse the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
Applicants' amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the controller is configured to operate each mode of each of the plurality of radar sensors in units of frame based on the application ratio,” and that neither Kim et al. (US 2012/0235857 A1) nor Suzuki et al. (US 5,694,130) teaches this limitation. Specifically, Applicant contends that Suzuki merely changes the modulation parameter of the radar system as a whole and fails to teach or suggest controlling an application ratio between two modes of a plurality of radar sensors and operating each radar sensor according to that application ratio in each frame. Applicant further argues that the Office Action fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kim’s multiple radar sensors to implement adjustable application ratios between first and second modes across the plurality of radar sensors frame-by-frame.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added “wherein” clause in claim 1 was previously recited as a limitation of dependent claim 6. The prior Office Action addressed this limitation at paragraph 25 and maintained the rejection. Incorporating this limitation into claim 1 does not introduce subject matter that was not already addressed in the prior rejection. As to the substance of the argument, Kim et al. (‘857) at [0042] teaches frame-based operation of its radar sensors, where the short range radar (SRR) operation includes a set of chirp signals (signals 50, 51, 52, and 53) constituting a discrete operational frame, and the long range radar (LRR) operation includes a separate set of chirp signals (signals 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59) constituting another discrete operational frame. FIG. 3 of Kim et al. (‘857) illustrates these frame-based signal groups. The signal processing processor 231 at [0033] generates control signals for the plurality of short-range transmitting chirp signals and the plurality of long-range transmitting chirp signals, teaching a controller that operates each mode in units of frame. The transmission power at [0035] is adjustable between the SRR and LRR modes, teaching control of the ratio between the two modes.
Suzuki et al. (‘130) supplements Kim et al. (‘857) by teaching dynamic selection of the operating mode in response to vehicle state and environmental conditions. Suzuki et al. (‘130) at Col. 4, lines 1-15 teaches a modulation frequency setting circuit that shifts the maximum detecting range by adjusting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target. The flowchart of FIG. 3 of Suzuki et al. (‘130) illustrates a decision process that allocates radar operation among different detection modes on a per-cycle basis, which is functionally equivalent to adjusting the application ratio on a frame-by-frame basis.
Applicant’s characterization of Suzuki as merely changing a modulation parameter of the radar system “as a whole” does not accurately reflect the scope of the combination. The rejection does not rely on Suzuki alone to teach the per-sensor frame-based operation - that is taught by Kim et al. (‘857). Suzuki et al. (‘130) is relied upon for the concept of dynamically adjusting the allocation between detection modes based on vehicle speed and target conditions. Combining Kim et al.’s frame-based multi-mode radar architecture with Suzuki et al.’s condition-responsive mode adjustment teaches operating each mode of each of the plurality of radar sensors in units of frame based on the application ratio, as claimed.
One would have been motivated to combine Kim et al. (‘857) with Suzuki et al. (‘130) because both references are directed to the same technical problem - optimizing radar detection performance in a vehicle-mounted multi-mode radar system by adjusting radar operating parameters in response to driving conditions. A person having ordinary skills in the art (PHOSITA) would have recognized that applying Suzuki et al.’s condition-responsive mode allocation to Kim et al.’s frame-based multi-sensor architecture would predictably improve radar performance by dynamically allocating sensor resources based on current vehicle speed and surrounding target conditions.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2012/0235857 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 5,694,130).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches:
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: A radar sensor apparatus for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a sensor device including a plurality of radar sensors, each of which detects a surrounding target by irradiating a radar signal based on a beam pattern ([0004]: “The radar system for a vehicle…may mean a safety driving system of a vehicle developed so as to previously prevent accidents occurring due to poor weather conditions or carelessness of a driver by sensing motions of other vehicles or objects”; [0043]: “the short range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the wide field of view with respect to the relatively shorter distance range and the long range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the narrow field of view with respect to the relatively longer distance range and then, received through the receiving array antenna 212”);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: and a controller configured to control the plurality of radar sensors ([0033]: “a signal processing processor 231 generating a control signal for generating the plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and the plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals and processing the signals processed by the receiver 240”; [0035]: “The power amplifiers 226 may be designed such that the transmitting power can be varied into two-stage or more in order to easily control the detection range on the long range mode and the short range mode”);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: by adjusting … an application ratio between a first mode based on short range and a second mode ([0032]: “generates a plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and a plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals by a frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) modulation scheme”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals 50, 51, 52, and 53 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time and the transmission power 60 for the short range transmission has relatively lower and mainly targets objects that are positioned within the a range of about 60 m or less”), teaching that the radar apparatus generates short range and long range chirp signal sets in a defined ratio, where the number and configuration of chirp signals allocated to SRR versus LRR operation constitutes an application ratio between the first mode (short range) and the second mode (long range);
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: depending on a change in a state and surrounding environment of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 1-4: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 shifts the maximum detecting range by shifting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target”; Abstract: “In case of a high vehicle speed, the modulation frequency is set low to extend the detection range. If an object in a short distance is detected, the modulation frequency is set high to limit the detection range to a short range, thereby enhancing the range resolution”), teaching adjustment of the radar operating mode depending on changes in vehicle speed (state) and detected target distance (surrounding environment);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: wherein the controller is configured to operate each mode of each of the plurality of radar sensors in units of frame based on the application ratio ([0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals 50, 51, 52, and 53 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the long range radar (LRR) operation include six chirp signals 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; FIG. 3 illustrating that the SRR and LRR chirp signal groups each constitute a discrete sequential operational frame within which the respective mode is operated). The signal processing processor 231 at [0033] controls the generation of these chirp signal frames for each mode, thereby operating each mode of the plurality of radar sensors in units of frame based on the allocation between SRR and LRR signal sets.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-mode short- and long-range radar apparatus of Kim et al. (‘857) with the vehicle-state-responsive mode adjustment teaching of Suzuki et al. (‘130). One would have been motivated to do so to dynamically optimize radar detection performance based on real-time vehicle conditions such as vehicle speed and proximity of surrounding objects, thereby improving detection accuracy and system responsiveness across varying driving scenarios. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the same technical field of vehicle-mounted radar systems, both employ mechanisms for adjusting radar operating parameters in response to vehicle state and environmental inputs, and the combination involves applying known vehicle-state-based mode adjustment techniques to a system already structured to support both short- and long-range operating modes.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: each of the plurality of radar sensors includes a number of virtual arrays, each virtual array corresponds to a receiving channel ([0045]: “the receiving array antenna 212 includes at least eight antenna elements and the plurality of receiving units connected thereto”; [0048]: “The signal processing processor 231 receives signals from the receiving array antenna 212 that is the phase array antenna and receives the signals provided via the plurality of receiving units of the receiver 240 and performs the signal processing thereon”);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: and the number of virtual arrays is based on the beam pattern and obtained by multiplying a number of transmitting antennas and a number of receiving antennas ([0032]: “generates a plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and a plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals by a frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) modulation scheme and transmits the generated chirp signals to an object (not illustrated) through at least one transmitting array antenna 211 and receives a signal reflected from an object through at least one receiving array antenna 212”; [0033]: “an antenna unit 210 including the at least one transmitting array antenna 211 and the at least one receiving array antenna 212”; [0043]: “the short range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the wide field of view with respect to the relatively shorter distance range and the long range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the narrow field of view with respect to the relatively longer distance range”), whereby the beam pattern determines the configuration of virtual receiving channels obtained through the combination of transmitting and receiving array elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: the controller is configured to: determine a mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors ([0033]: “a signal processing processor 231 generating a control signal for generating the plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and the plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals”; [0035]: “The power amplifiers 226 may be designed such that the transmitting power can be varied into two-stage or more in order to easily control the detection range on the long range mode and the short range mode”);
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: depending on a speed of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 1-15: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 determines, in step 1, if the vehicle speed is a high vehicle speed, e.g., 80 km/h or more on the basis of the vehicle speed data 6a supplied from the vehicle speed detector 6”);
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: and whether a target is detected in a specific area around the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 21-48: “if the detected range measured in a longest range detection mode (e.g., 150 m) at a high vehicle speed is 20 m or more (step 2), then a low modulation frequency (e.g., 1 MHz) is set to keep the longest range detection mode”; Col. 3, lines 45-56: “it is determined in step 7 whether the vehicle speed is a low vehicle speed (e.g., less than 40 km/h) and the detected range is 20 m or more. If the detected range is 20 m, then a modulation frequency of, e.g., 3 MHz is set…And, if the detected range is less than 20 m, a modulation frequency of, e.g., 7.5 MHz is set to make the detection mode a short range detection mode”);
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: adjust the application ratio between the first mode and the second mode in response to the determined mode operating level under a predetermined condition (Col. 4, lines 1-15: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 shifts the maximum detecting range by shifting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target”; Abstract: “In case of a high vehicle speed, the modulation frequency is set low to extend the detection range. If an object in a short distance is detected, the modulation frequency is set high to limit the detection range to a short range, thereby enhancing the range resolution”), teaching that the system adjusts the mode of operation based on predetermined conditions of vehicle speed and detected target range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-mode radar apparatus of Kim et al. (‘857) with the vehicle-speed-and-range-dependent mode determination logic of Suzuki et al. (‘130) for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1. Determining a mode level based on vehicle speed and whether a target is detected in a specific area, and then adjusting the application ratio between modes accordingly under a predetermined condition, represents a direct and predictable application of Suzuki et al.’s teaching to the multi-mode radar framework of Kim et al. (‘857).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 3.
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, and Suzuki et al. (‘130) does not explicitly teach, the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors is classified into (i) a level 0 at which the second mode is exclusively operated, (ii) a level 1 at which a proportion of the second mode is greater than a proportion of the first mode, (iii) a level 2 at which the proportion of the second mode and the proportion of the first mode are substantially the same, (iv) a level 3 at which the proportion of the first mode is greater than the proportion of the second, and (v) a level 4 at which the first mode is exclusively operated.
However, Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches a radar control method in which radar operating modes are selected through a stepwise decision process that progressively transitions the radar between long-range detection and short-range detection depending on vehicle speed and detected target distance (Col. 4, lines 21-48: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 determines, in step 1, if the vehicle speed is a high vehicle speed, e.g., 80 km/h or more…If the detected range measured in a longest range detection mode (e.g., 150 m) at a high vehicle speed is 20 m or more (step 2), then a low modulation frequency (e.g., 1 MHz) is set to keep the longest range detection mode…a modulation frequency of, e.g., 1.5 MHz is set to make the detection mode a long range detection mode (e.g., a detectable range of 100 m) in step 6…a modulation frequency of, e.g., 3 MHz is set to make the detection mode a middle range detection mode (e.g., a detectable range of 50 m) in step 8…a modulation frequency of, e.g., 7.5 MHz is set to make the detection mode a short range detection mode (e.g., a detectable range of 20 m) in step 9”). These operating modes form an ordered progression of discrete operating states that progressively increases short-range detection emphasis relative to long-range detection emphasis as vehicle speed decreases and detected target distance decreases.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-mode SRR/LRR radar architecture of Kim et al. (‘857), which teaches simultaneous support of short range and long range radar operation with adjustable operating parameters, with the stepwise progression of detection modes of Suzuki et al. (‘130), and to organize those progressively ordered operating states into discrete indexed operating levels - such as the claimed levels 0 through 4 - corresponding to the degree of short-range versus long-range detection emphasis in the combined system. One would have been motivated to do so because organizing radar operating states into a discrete level classification provides a structured and systematic control abstraction for selecting and managing radar operating parameters across a multi-mode radar architecture, a technique for simplifying parameter selection and enabling predictable transitions between operating states. The specific labeling of these states as indexed levels - ranging from exclusive long-range operation at one end to exclusive short-range operation at the other, with intermediate states in between where a proportion of one mode is greater than or substantially the same as the other - represents a routine design choice for implementing the ordered mode progression already taught by Suzuki et al. (‘130) within the dual-mode radar framework of Kim et al. (‘857). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the ordered progression of operating states taught by Suzuki et al. (‘130) maps directly onto a level-based classification framework, as both represent a systematic, condition-driven selection among a finite set of operating configurations arranged from long-range dominant to short-range dominant.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: set the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the level 0 when a short-range target is not detected in a short-range area that is farther than a first distance and is within a second distance from the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 21-48: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 determines, in step 1, if the vehicle speed is a high vehicle speed, e.g., 80 km/h or more…If the detected range measured in a longest range detection mode (e.g., 150 m) at a high vehicle speed is 20 m or more (step 2), then a low modulation frequency (e.g., 1 MHz) is set to keep the longest range detection mode”), teaching that when no target is detected within the short-range boundary of 20 m, the system maintains exclusive long range operation corresponding to level 0;
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: set the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the level 1 when a number of the short-range targets is smaller than or equal to a first predetermined number and is detected in the short-range area (Col. 4, lines 21-48: “if the vehicle speed is not a high vehicle speed, then, in step 4, the modulation frequency setting circuit 52 determines if the vehicle speed is a middle speed (e.g., 40 km/h or more). If so, and if the detected range is 20 m or more (step 5), then a modulation frequency of, e.g., 1.5 MHz is set to make the detection mode a long range detection mode”), teaching that detection of a limited target condition within the monitored area at a middle vehicle speed triggers a predominantly long range mode with partial short range contribution, corresponding to level 1. The element reciting the specific threshold number of short-range targets is contingent in that it depends on a predetermined number parameter, and to the extent this specific numerical threshold is not explicitly taught by Suzuki et al. (‘130), it represents a routine design choice within the skill of the art to define an appropriate target count threshold for transitioning between mode levels, and such a selection would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering optimization;
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: set the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the level 2 when a plurality of short-range targets are detected in the short-range area (Col. 4, lines 21-48: “If the vehicle speed is not a middle speed, it is determined in step 7 whether the vehicle speed is a low vehicle speed (e.g., less than 40 km/h) and the detected range is 20 m or more. If the detected range is 20 m, then a modulation frequency of, e.g., 3 MHz is set to make the detection mode a middle range detection mode (e.g., a detectable range of 50 m) in step 8”), teaching that detection of a target presence condition within the area at low vehicle speed triggers a mixed intermediate mode corresponding to level 2, and it would have been obvious to define the triggering condition for this level as detection of a plurality of short-range targets as a natural extension of escalating the mode level in response to increasing target density in the short-range area;
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: set the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the level 3 when a speed of the vehicle is smaller than a reference speed and a number of ultra-short-range targets is smaller than or equal to a second predetermined number and is detected in an ultra-short-range area within the first distance from the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 21-47: “And, if the detected range is less than 20 m, a modulation frequency of, e.g., 7.5 MHz is set to make the detection mode a short range detection mode (e.g., a detectable range of 20 m) in step 9”), teaching that detection of a target within an ultra-short range boundary at low vehicle speed triggers a predominantly short range mode corresponding to level 3. The element reciting the specific threshold number of ultra-short-range targets is contingent in that it depends on a predetermined number parameter, and for the same reasons stated above regarding the level 1 threshold, it represents a routine design choice within the skill of the art;
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: set the mode operating level of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the level 4 when the speed of the vehicle is smaller than a reference speed and the ultra-short-range targets are detected in the ultra-short-range area (Abstract: “if an object in a short distance is detected, the modulation frequency is set high to limit the detection range to a short range, thereby enhancing the range resolution”; Col. 4, lines 1-49), teaching that when the vehicle speed is low and a target is detected within the ultra-short range boundary (less than 20 m), the system fully switches to the short range detection mode, corresponding to exclusive short range/level 4 operation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-mode radar of Kim et al. (‘857) with the condition-based mode level assignment logic of Suzuki et al. (‘130) for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 4. Assigning specific mode operating levels based on whether short-range or ultra-short-range targets are detected within defined distance boundaries, and whether the vehicle speed is below a reference speed, directly extends the condition-based mode selection principles already taught by Suzuki et al. (‘130) to the graduated level framework, providing precise radar resource allocation in congested or close-range environments. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the modification involves applying Suzuki et al.’s existing vehicle-speed-and-range decision logic to defined short-range and ultra-short-range area boundaries, which are already monitored distance thresholds in the Suzuki et al. system, making the combination a predictable implementation of known principles.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 5.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: determine a mode to be applied to each frame based on the application ratio, which is set in response to the mode operating level ([0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals 50, 51, 52, and 53 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the long range radar (LRR) operation include six chirp signals 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; FIG. 3 illustrating that the SRR and LRR chirp signal groups each constitute a discrete sequential operational frame within which the respective mode is operated). Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches that the mode determination is responsive to the operating level (Col. 4, lines 1-15: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 shifts the maximum detecting range by shifting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target”; FIG. 3 flowchart of Suzuki et al. (‘130) illustrating that for each operational cycle, the mode to be applied is determined based on the then-current vehicle speed and detected range conditions, i.e., the mode operating level, thereby teaching determination of the mode applied per operational unit in response to the determined level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the frame-based chirp signal operation of Kim et al. (‘857) with the per-cycle mode determination logic of Suzuki et al. (‘130) for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1. Determining which mode to apply to each discrete processing frame based on the application ratio set in response to the mode operating level is a natural and predictable implementation of the combined teachings, as both the frame-based architecture of Kim et al. (‘857) and the condition-responsive per-cycle mode selection of Suzuki et al. (‘130) are directed to the same goal of dynamically optimizing radar detection performance.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 6.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: switch the mode of each of the plurality of radar sensors to the first mode or the second mode by adjusting a signal bandwidth of each of the plurality of radar sensors ([0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals 50, 51, 52, and 53 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the long range radar (LRR) operation include six chirp signals 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; FIG. 3 of Kim et al. (‘857) illustrating that the SRR chirp signals occupy a wider frequency sweep bandwidth while the LRR chirp signals occupy a narrower frequency sweep bandwidth, such that switching between modes is accomplished by adjusting the signal bandwidth; [0011]: “at the time of sensing the short range a shorter detection range and a wider detection angle are obtained and better resolution for the detection range is obtained than at the time of sensing the long range”), confirming that the short range mode operates with a different bandwidth configuration than the long range mode.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 7.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: set a maximum detection distance of each of the plurality of radar sensors by adjusting a number of samplings based on distance resolution of the first mode or the second mode ([0042]: “the transmission power 61 for the long range transmission has relatively higher than that for the short range transmitting chirp signal and mainly targets objects that are positioned within a distance of about 150 m or less”; [0042]: “the transmission power 60 for the short range transmission has relatively lower and mainly targets objects that are positioned within the a range of about 60 m or less”; [0011]: “at the time of sensing the long range a longer detection range and a narrower detection angle are obtained and better resolution for the detection range is obtained than at the time of sensing the long range”), establishing that each mode has a distinct maximum detection distance tied to its distance resolution characteristics.
Suzuki et al. (‘130) further teaches adjusting the maximum detection distance by parameter control tied to the operating mode (Col. 4, lines 1-15: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 shifts the maximum detecting range by shifting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target”). Specifically, the modulation frequency controls the number of resolvable range samples available within the detection window, directly analogous to adjusting a number of samplings based on the distance resolution of the applicable mode.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mode-specific maximum detection distance teaching of Kim et al. (‘857) with the parameter-based maximum detection distance control of Suzuki et al. (‘130). One would have been motivated to do so in order to precisely control the maximum detection distance for each operating mode by adjusting the number of samplings in proportion to the distance resolution of that mode, thereby optimizing detection range coverage and range resolution simultaneously. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both references are directed to the same FMCW-based vehicle radar architecture, and the relationship between sampling count, distance resolution, and maximum detection distance is a signal processing principle within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches the apparatus according to claim 7.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: set a maximum detection speed of each of the plurality of radar sensors by adjusting a chirp time for a frequency signal of each of the plurality of radar sensors ([0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals 50, 51, 52, and 53 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the long range radar (LRR) operation include six chirp signals 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 having different slopes of frequency with respect to time”; FIG. 3 of Kim et al. (‘857) illustrating that the SRR and LRR chirp signals have distinct slopes of frequency with respect to time, thereby teaching that the chirp time - the time duration of each frequency ramp - differs between modes and directly controls the maximum detectable speed range of each mode);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: and set speed resolution of each of the plurality of radar sensors based on an operating time of the frame according to the chirp time and a number of chirps ([0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the short range radar (SRR) operation include four chirp signals”; [0042]: “the plurality of chirp signals for the long range radar (LRR) operation include six chirp signals”; FIG. 3 illustrating that the total frame operating time is determined by the product of the individual chirp time and the number of chirps in the respective mode’s frame, and that each mode has a distinct number of chirps and distinct chirp slope, thereby teaching that speed resolution is set based on the frame operating time as determined by chirp time and chirp count).
Suzuki et al. (‘130) further teaches the relevance of precise speed detection capability in vehicle radar systems (Col. 1, lines 40-42: “Also in detection of the relative speed, if the range to the target is short, more precise detection is desirable”; Abstract: “Relative speed operating unit finds the relative speed based on the range data”), confirming that speed resolution is a design objective that must be addressed in the operating mode configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chirp-count and chirp-time parameterization of Kim et al. (‘857) with the speed resolution precision teaching of Suzuki et al. (‘130). One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve precise relative speed measurements across varying vehicle operating conditions, particularly at short ranges where Suzuki et al. (‘130) recognizes that precision is especially desirable, by configuring the frame operating time through appropriate selection of chirp time and number of chirps. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both references are directed to the same goal of optimizing radar performance parameters as a function of operating mode, and the combination involves applying known FMCW chirp parameter relationships - which are within the common general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art - to a system already structured to accommodate such adjustments.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. (‘857) in view of Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches:
Claim 10 is an independent method claim. The body of claim 10 recites substantively identical functional elements as claim 1, differing only in the preamble. The limitations of claim 10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: A method of controlling a radar sensor apparatus for a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting, by a plurality of radar sensors, a surrounding target by irradiating a radar signal based on a beam pattern from the plurality of radar sensors ([0039]: “the radar apparatus in accordance with the embodiment of the present invention generates the plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and the plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals and transmits the generated chirp signals to an object (not illustrated) through at least one transmitting array antenna 211”; [0043]: “the short range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the wide field of view with respect to the relatively shorter distance range and the long range transmitting chirp signals are radiated to have the narrow field of view with respect to the relatively longer distance range and then, received through the receiving array antenna 212”);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: controlling, by a control device, the plurality of radar sensors by adjusting an application ratio of a first mode based on a short range, and a second mode ([0033]: “a signal processing processor 231 generating a control signal for generating the plurality of short range transmitting chirp signals and the plurality of long range transmitting chirp signals”; [0035]: “The power amplifiers 226 may be designed such that the transmitting power can be varied into two-stage or more in order to easily control the detection range on the long range mode and the short range mode”);
Kim et al. (‘857) does not explicitly teach, but Suzuki et al. (‘130) teaches: depending on a change in a state and surrounding environment of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 1-4: “The modulation frequency setting circuit 52 shifts the maximum detecting range by shifting the modulation frequency in multiple steps in response to the traveling speed of the vehicle and the range to the target”; Abstract: “In case of a high vehicle speed, the modulation frequency is set low to extend the detection range. If an object in a short distance is detected, the modulation frequency is set high to limit the detection range to a short range, thereby enhancing the range resolution”);
Kim et al. (‘857) teaches: wherein the controller is configured to operate each mode of each of the plurality of radar sensors in units of frame based on the application ratio ([0042]; FIG. 3), for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim et al. (‘857) with Suzuki et al. (‘130) for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
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 REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 H 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights