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 Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “in which” in line 1. It appears that it should be “wherein” for consistency with other claims.
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 14-25 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 14, 24, and 25 recite the limitations: 1) "a correlation value of the subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern" in claim 14 lines 7-8, claim 24 lines 7-8, claim 25 lines 9-10, respectively. It is indefinite because “the subset of the antenna signals” and “the antenna pattern” are two different in concept, which cannot implement a correlation calculation. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "a correlation value of the subset of the antenna signals with the complete set of the antenna signals". 2) “the at least one omitted antenna signal of the subset” in claim 14 line 9, claim 24 line 9, claim 25 line 11, respectively. It is indefinite because “the at least one omitted antenna signal” is in “a complete set of the antenna signals”, which is not included in “the subset”, as indicated in claim 14 lines 3-4, claim 24 lines 3-4, claim 25 lines 5-6, respectively, “a subset of antenna signals by omitting at least one antenna signal from a complete set of the antenna signals”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least one omitted antenna signal corresponding to the subset”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 15-23 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14 because each of dependent claims 15-23 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation: “a further correlation value of the further subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because “the further subset of the antenna signals” and “the antenna pattern” are two different in concept, which cannot implement a correlation calculation. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "a further correlation value of the further subset of the antenna signals with the complete set of the antenna signals". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 16 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 15 because dependent claim 16 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 15.
Claim 21 recites the limitation: “the antenna pattern is compensated using the compensation value” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “the antenna pattern”, which is a fixed structure after design, “is compensated using the compensation value”, which is “for the at least one antenna signal”. That is, it is not clear how “a compensation value for the at least one antenna signal” is used to compensate “the antenna pattern”, which is a fixed structure after design. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the complete set of the antenna signals is compensated using the compensation value”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitations: 1) “one compensation value is calculated per measurement” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what the “measurement” is about; ii) it is not clear what “one compensation value” is for; iii) it is not clear how and whether or not the “one compensation value” and the “measurement” relate to the “radar sensor”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “one compensation value for the at least one antenna signal classified as erroneous is calculated per measurement of the object”. 2) “the compensation values of the measurements” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because: i) “measurements” is not mentioned; ii) it is not clear what the “measurements” are about and how the “measurements” relate to the “radar sensor”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the compensation values of the measurements of the object”. 3) “the antenna pattern is compensated using the filtered compensation value” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “the antenna pattern”, which is a fixed structure after design, “is compensated using the filtered compensation value”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the complete set of the antenna signals is compensated using the filtered compensation value”. Appropriate clarifications are 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 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roger et al. (US 12,189,052, hereafter Roger).
Regarding claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that A method for detecting erroneous antenna signals from a radar sensor having a plurality of antennas { Fig.5 item 503, 504 (transmit antennas), 505, 506 (receive antennas); Fig.10; Col.2 lines 7 (A method is provided for processing radar signals), 9 (determining a variation of at least one radar parameter), 21-22 (determined whether a single parameter falls outside a predefined (maximum) variation), 66 (determining an error compensation vector); col.9 lines 47-48 (Each MMIC 501, 502 is coupled with M transmit antennas 503, 504 and N receive antennas 505, 506); Examiner’s note: col.2 lines 21-22 and Fig.10 for “detecting erroneous antenna signals” }, the method comprising the following steps:
forming a subset of antenna signals by omitting at least one antenna signal from a complete set of the antenna signals { Fig.5 item 505; Fig.10 measurement dots in item 1001 (MMIC#1) and 1002 (MMIC#2); Fig.15 measurement dots in MMIC#1 and MMIC#2; Examiner’s note: measurement dots in MMIC#2 is interpreted as “omitting at least one antenna signal” };
estimating a direction to an object using the subset and an antenna pattern of the radar sensor {Fig.5; Fig.9; Fig.15 fit line using MMIC#1 (see mark below); Fig.24; col.14 line 58-67 (For each selected target (known to be unique in this R/D cell), (substantially) linear phase variations across virtual channels are expected based on a uniquely detected angle θ. 2) The ideal phase slope can be deduced from the expected phase delay from one channel to the next:
PNG
media_image1.png
20
91
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,wherein n is the channel and s is the distance between antennas.); Examiner’s note: Fig.5 for “an antenna pattern”. Fig.9 and Fig.15 fit line for “estimating a direction to an object”. Fig.24 shows that phase offset is obtained from direction θ. };
PNG
media_image2.png
557
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining a correlation value of the subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern in the estimated direction { Fig.11; Fig.15 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 with real phases on Rx array; Fig.16 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 with real phases on Rx array; col.19 lines 50-55 (determine the constant by calculating for k=0 ... (K-1):
PNG
media_image3.png
17
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein mA[k] is a slope obtained ( e.g., by linear line fitting) for the phases); Examiner’s note:
PNG
media_image3.png
17
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for “a correlation value”}; and
classifying the at least one omitted antenna signal of the subset as erroneous when the correlation value satisfies a selection condition { Fig.11; Fig.16 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 and MMIC#2; col.19 lines 39-41 (determine the constant mA such that
PNG
media_image4.png
15
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is minimized) , 65 (There is a P[k*] with a minimum sqErr[k*]); col.20 lines 17-18 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106 in); Examiner’s note: results from MMIC#2 shows “erroneous” }.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
a further subset is formed from the complete set by omitting at least one other antenna signal from the complete set when the correlation value does not satisfy the selection condition { Fig.5 item 506; Fig.10 measurement dots in item 1001 (MMIC#1) and 1002 (MMIC#2); Fig.15 measurement dots in MMIC#1 and MMIC#2; Examiner’s note: measurement dots in MMIC#2 is interpreted as “the subset” for the case that “when the correlation value does not satisfy the selection condition”. measurement dots in MMIC#1 is interpreted as “a further subset” and measurement dots in MMIC#2 is interpreted as “omitting at least one other antenna signal” },
wherein a further direction to the object is estimated using the further subset and the antenna pattern { Fig.5 item 506; Fig.9; Fig.15 fit line using MMIC#1 (see mark below); Fig.24; col.14 line 58-67 (For each selected target (known to be unique in this R/D cell), (substantially) linear phase variations across virtual channels are expected based on a uniquely detected angle θ. 2) The ideal phase slope can be deduced from the expected phase delay from one channel to the next:
PNG
media_image1.png
20
91
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,wherein n is the channel and s is the distance between antennas.); Examiner’s note: Fig.5 item 506 for “the antenna pattern”. Fig.9 and Fig.15 fit line for “a further direction to the object is estimated”. Fig.24 shows that phase offset is obtained from direction θ.}, and
PNG
media_image2.png
557
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a further correlation value of the further subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern in the estimated further direction is determined { Fig.11; Fig.15 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 with real phases on Rx array; Fig.16 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 with real phases on Rx array; col.19 lines 50-55 (determine the constant by calculating for k=0 ... (K-1):
PNG
media_image3.png
17
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein mA[k] is a slope obtained ( e.g., by linear line fitting) for the phases); Examiner’s note:
PNG
media_image3.png
17
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for “a correlation value”}, and
wherein the at least one omitted other antenna signal for the further subset is classified as erroneous when the further correlation value satisfies the selection condition { Fig.11; Fig.16 fit line with measurement dots in MMIC#1 and MMIC#2; col.19 lines 39-41 (determine the constant mA such that
PNG
media_image4.png
15
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is minimized) , 65 (There is a P[k*] with a minimum sqErr[k*]); col.20 lines 17-18 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106 in); Examiner’s note: results from MMIC#2 shows “erroneous”}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claims 14-15, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
the correlation value and the further correlation value are compared to one another when none of the correlation value and the further correlation value satisfies the selection condition { Fig.11; Fig.15; Examiner’s note: both fit line from MMIC#1 and fit line from MMIC#2 are off the real phase on Rx array},
PNG
media_image2.png
557
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one omitted antenna signal for the subset or the at least one other omitted antenna signal for the further subset with a greatest correlation value is classified as erroneous { Figs.15-16 measurement dots from MMIC#2; col.19 lines 39-41 (determine the constant mA such that
PNG
media_image4.png
15
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is minimized); col.20 lines 16-17 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106 in); Examiner’s note: Fig.16 shows that measurement dots from MMIC#2 has “a greatest correlation value” |m1 -mA| > |m0-mA|.}.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
a rough direction to the object is ascertained using all antenna signals and the antenna pattern {Fig.9},
wherein the estimation of the direction using the subset is limited to a direction range around the rough direction { Fig.10 items 1001, 1002 are around 1003}.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
the subset includes at least three antenna signals { col.9 lines 47-50 (Each MMIC 501, 502 is coupled with M transmit antennas 503, 504 and N receive antennas 505, 506. In this example N=M=4, i.e. each MMIC 501, 502 has four transmit channels and four receive channels.)}.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
a rough direction to the object is read in and the estimation of the direction using the subset is limited to a direction range around the rough direction {Fig.9; Fig.10 items 1001, 1002 are around 1003; Examiner’s note: Fig.10 item 1003 is interpreted as “read in” because it is estimated first in Fig.9},
wherein the subset includes at least two of the antenna signals { col.9 lines 47-50 (Each MMIC 501, 502 is coupled with M transmit antennas 503, 504 and N receive antennas 505, 506. In this example N=M=4, i.e. each MMIC 501, 502 has four transmit channels and four receive channels.)}.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
the object is selected using all of the antenna signals and at least one object criterion from a group of objects represented in the antenna signals {Fig.19; Fig.24; Col.21 lines 62-66 (When there is a single object in one range-Doppler bin, the situation is preferable since the sample groups 1001, 1002 each lie (approximately) on a respective straight line ( even if there is a phase shift between the sample groups and thus a shift between the two lines).)}.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
a compensation value for the at least one antenna signal classified as erroneous is calculated using the estimated direction { Fig.11 item 1106, mA; col.19 lines 39-41 (determine the constant mA such that
PNG
media_image4.png
15
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is minimized) , 65 (There is a P[k*] with a minimum sqErr[k*]); col.20 lines 12-14 (Value pairs of P[k] and sqErr[k] are interpolated by a parabola 1301 with a minimum 1302 to determine the best compensation value 15), 17-18 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106 in); Examiner’s note: results from MMIC#2 shows “erroneous”},
wherein the at least one antenna signal classified as erroneous and/or the antenna pattern is compensated using the compensation value { Fig.11 item 1102, 1104, 1106; col.20 lines 17-18 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106); Examiner’s note: results from MMIC#2 shows “erroneous”}.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
the at least one erroneous antenna signal is determined via at least two measurements of the object { Fig.10 four measurements in MMIC#2}.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 14, Roger (‘052) discloses that in the method,
one compensation value is calculated per measurement { Fig.11 each measurement has one offset with respect to item 1105},
wherein the compensation values of the measurements are time-filtered to obtain a filtered compensation value { col.11 lines 1-2 (generate an averaged error compensation vector before applying it to other areas of the range/Doppler map); col.17 lines 65-67 (compute an error compensation vector and normal acquisitions may be conducted in an interleaved way. Hence an error compensation vector may); col.18 line 1 (( e.g., periodically or at a given time scheme) be determined); Examiner’s note: “averaged error compensation vector” is “time-filtered” “filtered compensation value” because “an error compensation vector” “periodically” “be determined” and “average” performs smoothing filter},
wherein the at least one antenna signal classified as erroneous and/or the antenna pattern is compensated using the filtered compensation value {Fig.11 item 1106; col.11 lines 1-2 (generate an averaged error compensation vector before applying it to other areas of the range/Doppler map); col.20 lines 17-18 (the best compensation value ( as indicated by arrow 1106); Examiner’s note: “average” for “filtered compensation value”}.
Regarding claim 24, Roger (‘052) discloses that A control device { Fig.1 item 103 (radar control device); Col.4 lines 55-57 (A device is suggested for processing radar signals comprising, wherein the device is configured to conduct the steps of the method as described herein.); col.6 lines 48 (Fig.1), 50 (a radar control device 103) } configured to detect erroneous antenna signals from a radar sensor having a plurality of antennas, the control device configured to:
form a subset of antenna signals by omitting at least one antenna signal from a complete set of the antenna signals;
estimate a direction to an object using the subset and an antenna pattern of the radar sensor;
determine a correlation value of the subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern in the estimated direction; and
classify the at least one omitted antenna signal of the subset as erroneous when the correlation value satisfies a selection condition.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 14. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 14. See the rejections of claim 14}.
Regarding claim 25, Roger (‘052) discloses that A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for detecting erroneous antenna signals from a radar sensor having a plurality of antennas, the computer program, when executed by a computer {Fig.1; Col.5 lines 16-19 (a computer program product is suggested, which is directly loadable into a memory of a digital processing device, comprising software code portions for performing the steps of the method as described herein) }, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
forming a subset of antenna signals by omitting at least one antenna signal from a complete set of the antenna signals;
estimating a direction to an object using the subset and an antenna pattern of the radar sensor;
determining a correlation value of the subset of the antenna signals with the antenna pattern in the estimated direction; and
classifying the at least one omitted antenna signal of the subset as erroneous when the correlation value satisfies a selection condition.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 14. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 14. See the rejections of claim 14}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648