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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig.12 does not show what the axes represent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 13-15 objected to because of the following informalities: “a target” in line 1. It appears that “a” should be “the”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 7, 16 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) " the obtaining, based on a plurality of target echo signals received in a sub-time period before the target moment, target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals comprises: " in lines 1-3. It appears that it should be “ the obtaining, based on [[a]] the plurality of target echo signals received in [[a]] the sub-time period before the target moment, the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals comprises: ". 2) “obtaining, from each processed spectrum data group, spectrum data corresponding to a frequency” in lines 10-11. It appears that it should be “obtaining, from each processed spectrum data group, the spectrum data corresponding to a frequency”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 8, 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “a spectrum data group” in line 2. It appears that “a” should be “the”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-17 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 1, 9, 10 recite the limitations: 1) “each target moment” in claim 1 lines 3-4, claim 9 line 5, claim 10 line 6, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each target moment” relates to and/or is one of the “a plurality of target moments” mentioned in claim 1 line 5, claim 9 line 6, claim 10 line 7, respectively. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a target moment in a plurality of target moments”. 2) “the target moment” in claim 1 lines 5-6, claim 9 line 7, claim 10 line 8, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear that “the target moment” represents the “each target moment” mentioned in claim 1 lines 3-4, claim 9 line 5, claim 10 line 6 or one of the “a plurality of target moments” mentioned in claim 1 line 5, claim 9 line 6, claim 10 line 7. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the each target moment”. 3) "a frequency whose range direction value" in claim 1 line 11, claim 9 line 13, claim 10 line 14, respectively. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear how “a frequency”, which is one value, has “range direction value”. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “a frequency” has other “direction value” in addition to the “range direction value”. iii) it is not clear whether or not the “a frequency” is a vector which has “range direction value”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "a frequency in range spectrum". Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claims 11-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10 because each of dependent claims 11-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 10.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the limitations: 1) “determining a first time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because as mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-4 “receiving an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment; calculating, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence” and in claim 10 lines 3-6 “the antenna unit is configured to receive an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment; and the sensor is configured to: calculate, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence”, it is not clear whether or not “the first moment” and “the second moment” is known before or after obtaining “the feature value sequence”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “determining a first time period in [[from]] the first moment [[to]] and the second moment based on the feature value sequence”. 2) “a feature value” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a feature value” relates to the “a feature value” mentioned in claim 1 line 3 for claim 4 and claim 10 line 5 for claim 13, respectively. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the feature value”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitations: 1) “determining a second time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because as mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-4 “receiving an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment; calculating, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence” and in claim 10 lines 3-6 “the antenna unit is configured to receive an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment; and the sensor is configured to: calculate, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence”, it is not clear whether or not “the first moment” and “the second moment” is known before or after obtaining “the feature value sequence”. It is also not clear whether a first time period exists. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “determining a [[second]] time period in [[from]] the first moment [[to]] and the second moment based on the feature value sequence”. 2) “none of feature values corresponding to the target moment” in line 4. It is indefinite because “a feature value corresponding to each target moment” as indicated in claim 1 lines 3-4 and claim 10 lines 5-6, it is not clear what is the relationship between the “feature values” in line 4 and the “a feature value” mentioned in claim 1 line 3 and claim 10 line 5, respectively. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “none of the feature value[[s]] corresponding to the target moment”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the limitation “to obtain target spectrum data corresponding to each target echo signal” in lines 1-2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “target spectrum data” in lines 1-2 from bottom relates to the “target spectrum data” mentioned in line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “to obtain the target spectrum data corresponding to each target echo signal”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the limitations: 1) “a spectrum data group” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a spectrum data group” in lines 4-5 is the same as the “a spectrum data group” mentioned in line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “[[a]] the spectrum data group”. 2) “the spectrum data group” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a spectrum data group” mentioned in lines 2, 4-5 “the spectrum data group” in line 5 represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, the limitation “a spectrum data group” in lines 4-5 is being interpreted as “the spectrum data group”. 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 1, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amihood et al. (WO2021177956, hereafter Amihood).
Regrading claim 1, Amihood (‘956) discloses that A target sensing method { Fig.3-1; [005] lines 1 (a method performed by a radar system), 1-3 from bottom (method also includes detecting, the user interacting with the smart device)}, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment { Fig.3-1 item 308 (radar receive signal), 310-1~N (chirp)};
calculating, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence { Fig.4 item 428-1 (digital beat signal); Fig.6 items 428-1 (Digital beat signal), 614 (Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame 614-1), 620 (range-Dopple map) (see marks below); [074] lines 3-5 (the beat signal 426 can include multiple frequencies, which represents reflections from different portions of the user 302 ( e. g., different fingers, different portions of a hand, or different body parts).); [084] lines 1-2 (the sequence of chirps 310-1 to 310-M within each of the digital beat signals 428-1 to 428-M.); Examiner’s note: target moment is received signal. Fig.6 item 614 for “a feature value sequence”},
PNG
media_image1.png
496
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the feature value sequence comprises feature values corresponding to a plurality of target moments sorted in a time order { Fig.6 (see mark below for “in a time order”}, and
PNG
media_image2.png
496
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the target moment is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment { Fig.3-1 (chirp 310-1~N)}, wherein
the calculating the feature value corresponding to each target moment { Fig.6 (Digital Beat Signal 428-1 as input, Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame 614-1, range-Doppler Map 620} comprises:
obtaining, based on a plurality of target echo signals received in a sub-time period before the target moment, target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals {Fig.6 (1D FFT, 2D FFT) see marks below},
PNG
media_image3.png
496
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
the sub-time period comprises the target moment, and the target spectrum data is spectrum data corresponding to a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value { Fig.6 (digital beat signal, chirp, range bin), see marks below; Examiner’s note: “beat signal” for “target moment”. range bin range for “range direction value is less than a preset value”}; and
PNG
media_image4.png
496
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
obtaining, based on the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals, the feature value corresponding to the target moment {Fig.6 (see marks below)}; and
PNG
media_image5.png
496
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
sensing a target based on the feature value sequence {title (NEAR-RANGE DETECTION); Fig.7 items 708 (Near-range object), 710 (Far-range object); [088] lines 1-2 (FIG. 7 illustrates an example range-Doppler map 620 for performing near-range detection.)}.
Regarding claim 9, Amihood (‘956) discloses that A target sensing apparatus {title (smart-device-based radar system performing near-range detection)}, comprising an antenna unit {Fig.4 item 420 (transmit antenna element), 422-1~M (receive antenna element)} and a sensor {Fig.4 item 214 (transceiver); page 4 line 5 (FIG. 4 illustrates an example antenna array and an example transceiver of a radar system.)}, wherein the antenna unit is configured to receive an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment { Fig.3-1 item 308 (radar receive signal), 310-1~N (chirp); Fig.4 item 422-1~M (receive antenna element); }; and
the sensor is configured to:
calculate, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence,
wherein the feature value sequence comprises feature values corresponding to a plurality of target moments sorted in a time order, and
the target moment is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment; and
sense a target based on the feature value sequence,
wherein
the calculating the feature value corresponding to each target moment comprises:
obtaining, based on a plurality of target echo signals received in a sub-time period before the target moment, target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals, wherein the sub-time period comprises the target moment, and the target spectrum data is spectrum data corresponding to a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value; and
obtaining, based on the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals, the feature value corresponding to the target moment.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 10, Amihood (‘956) discloses that A vehicle {Fig.2-1 item 104-9 (vehicle); [023] lines 1-4 (the radar system 102 as part of the smart device 104. The smart device 104 is illustrated with various non-limiting example devices including a desktop computer 104-1, a tablet 104-2, a laptop 104-3, a television 104-4, a computing watch 104-5, computing glasses 104-6, a gaming system 104-7, a microwave 104-8, and a vehicle 104-9.)}, comprising a sensing apparatus, wherein the sensing apparatus comprises:
an antenna unit and a sensor, and
wherein the antenna unit is configured to receive an echo signal from a first moment to a second moment; and
the sensor is configured to:
calculate, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment, to obtain a feature value sequence,
wherein the feature value sequence comprises feature values corresponding to a plurality of target moments sorted in a time order, and
the target moment is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment; and
sense a target based on the feature value sequence,
wherein
the calculating the feature value corresponding to each target moment comprises:
obtaining, based on a plurality of target echo signals received in a sub-time period before the target moment, target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals, wherein the sub-time period comprises the target moment, and the target spectrum data is spectrum data corresponding to a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value; and
obtaining, based on the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals, the feature value corresponding to the target moment.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 9. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9. See the rejections of claim 9}.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Roger et al. (US11,639983, hereafter Roger).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) discloses that in the method,
the frequency whose range direction value is less than the preset value is a frequency whose range direction value is {Fig.7 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
607
912
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Amihood (‘956) doe not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “ a frequency whose range direction value is 0”. In the same field of endeavor, Roger (‘983) discloses that
the frequency whose range direction value is less than the preset value is a frequency whose range direction value is 0”,{Fig.6 “0” in range axis (see mark below)}
PNG
media_image7.png
277
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. count range bin from “0” in range-Doppler map) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. extract target range information from received radar signal) and result in an improved system (e.g. use Range-Doppler maps for various identification and classification algorithms so as to sense distances and velocities of detected target using digital signal processing, as recognized by Roger (‘983) {col.1 lines 17 (for sensing distances and velocities), 48-49 (The detection of the radar targets is usually accomplished using digital signal processing); col.6 lines 59-60 (The target range information can be extracted from the spectrum of this mixed signal), 62-64 (Range-Doppler maps can be used as a basis for various identification and classification algorithms.)}).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2, shown above.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Shimizu et al . (US 2022/0026525, hereafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) does not explicitly disclose “the feature value corresponding to the target moment is a variance or a standard deviation of the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals”. In the same field of endeavor, Shimizu (‘525) discloses that in the method,
the feature value corresponding to the target moment is a variance or a standard deviation of the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals { Fig.10 (D8: power variance of the peaks); [0088] lines 1-2 (A eighth feature quantity D8 is a power variance of the determination peak on the FFT spectrum .)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Amihood (‘956) with the teachings of Shimizu (‘525) {use a power variance of the determination peak on the FFT spectrum as a feature quantity } to use a power variance of the determination peak on the FFT spectrum as a feature quantity. Doing so would quantity features in a certain way (e.g. power variance of peaks) so as to determine whether a specific environment occurs, as recognized by Shimizu (‘525) {Figs. 6-10; [0004] lines 2-6 (a radar apparatus for suppressing erroneous detections by determining whether the own vehicle is in a specific environment due to fluctuation of the number of peak detections in which erroneous detections are likely to occur)}.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 3, shown above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Huang et al. (X. Huang, S. Tang, L. Zhang and S. Li, "Ground-Based Radar Detection for High-Speed Maneuvering Target via Fast Discrete Chirp-Fourier Transform," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 12097-12113, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2892505, Hereafter Huang).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) discloses that in the method, the sensing a target based on the feature value sequence comprises:
determining a first time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence { Fig.3-1 chirp 30-1~N; Fig.6 item 614 (Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame); Examiner’s note: peak period in Fig.6 item 614 for “a first time period”. Fig.6 item 614 for “feature value sequence”},
wherein a feature value corresponding to the target moment in the first time period increases from a minimum threshold to a maximum threshold { Fig.6 peaks in item 614 (Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame) (see mark below); Examiner’s note: peaks in Fig.6 item 614 vary in a certain range for “from a minimum threshold to a maximum threshold”}; and
PNG
media_image5.png
496
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
when a moving speed of the target in the first time period is greater than a preset threshold, determining that the target is sensed { Fig.7 items 708 (Near-Range Object), 710 (Far-Range Object), 714(low-doppler bins), 712 (high-doppler bins)},
.
However, Amihood (‘956) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “wherein the moving speed of the target in the first time period is a ratio of a difference between the maximum threshold and the minimum threshold to duration of the first time period”. In the same field of endeavor, Huang (‘NPL) discloses that
wherein the moving speed of the target in the first time period is a ratio of a difference between the maximum threshold and the minimum threshold to duration of the first time period { page 12099 right column Eq.(6)
PNG
media_image8.png
28
342
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; page 12100 left column Eq.(8)
PNG
media_image9.png
73
371
media_image9.png
Greyscale
; page 12109 Fig.11 (b) (Detection result for the target with v= 2020 m/s) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Amihood (‘956) with the teachings of Huang (‘NPL) {determine speed using range difference over time} to determine speed using range difference over time. Doing so would reduce computational load so as to improving detection ability under the condition of complicated range migration and Doppler frequency migration effects without performance loss, as recognized by Huang (‘NPL) {abstract lines 2-3 (improving detection ability under the condition of complicated range migration and Doppler frequency migration effects, and reducing computational load), 9-10 (reduce the computational complexity without performance loss.)}.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 4, shown above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113866761, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) discloses that in the method, the sensing a target based on the feature value sequence comprises:
determining a second time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence { Fig.3-1 chirp 30-1~N; Fig.6 item 614 (Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame); Examiner’s note: peak period in Fig.6 item 614 for “a second time period”. Fig.6 item 614 for “feature value sequence”},
.
However, Amihood (‘956) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “wherein none of feature values corresponding to the target moment in the second time period is less than a maximum threshold; and when duration of the second time period is greater than preset duration, determining that the target is sensed”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang (‘761) discloses that
wherein none of feature values corresponding to the target moment in the second time period is less than a maximum threshold {page 9 lines 14-15 from bottom (the Doppler signal strength of the target human body in a continuous time period is greater than the preset threshold value)}; and
when duration of the second time period is greater than preset duration, determining that the target is sensed{ page 1 abstract lines 6-8 (if the Doppler signal intensity of the target human body is greater than the preset threshold value, determining the target human body movement.); page 9 lines 12-13 form bottom (the starting time of the time period as the starting time of the body moving process, The end time of the time period is determined as the end time of the motion process)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Amihood (‘956) with the teachings of Zhang (‘761) {evaluate received radar data feature (e.g. Doppler signal strength) over a time period for determining the target movement } to evaluate received radar data feature (e.g. Doppler signal strength) over a time period for determining the target movement. Doing so would record the detected target movement time information so as to ensure the accuracy of detection information (e.g. target motion), as recognized by Zhang (‘761) {page 2 lines 18-19 (so as to ensure the accuracy of the detection); page 9 lines 17-18 from bottom (recording the body movement time information,), 3-5 from bottom (the radar device can send the body motion detection information to the electronic device, the body motion detection information comprises the target human body occurrence time in the preset time period and body motion time information corresponding to each body motion.)}.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 5, shown above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0196798, hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) does not explicitly disclose “the sensing a target based on the feature value sequence comprises: inputting the feature value sequence into a trained neural network, to obtain a sensing result at the second moment, wherein the trained neural network is obtained through training by using a feature value sequence corresponding to a sample time period as an input and a sensing result of the sample time period as a label”. In the same field of endeavor, Chen (‘798) discloses that in the method, the sensing a target based on the feature value sequence {[0017] line 2 ( method to perform object detection by the radar detector;)} comprises:
inputting the feature value sequence into a trained neural network, to obtain a sensing result at the second moment {Fig.24; Fig.29; [0322] lines 4-6 (the neural network 2000 may be trained to make use of the fact that different objects have different profiles of 4D - bins)},
wherein the trained neural network is obtained through training by using a feature value sequence corresponding to a sample time period as an input and a sensing result of the sample time period as a label {Fig.29 (labeled points); Fig.31; Fig.32; [0035] lines 1-2 (FIG . 31 illustrates a supervised training of a neural network according to an embodiment); [0036] lines 1-2 (FIG . 32 illustrates a self - supervised training of a neural network according to an embodiment); [0071] lines 14-16 (the trained machine learning model may be used to generate additional training data .); [0387] lines 7-10 (where labeled data is available the final layers of the DeepAOA can be straightforwardly configured for perception tasks ( e.g. , detection , segmentation ) .); [0401] lines 1-2 (FIG. 32 illustrates a self-supervised training of the DeepAOA neural network }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Amihood (‘956) with the teachings of Chen (‘798) {use neural network to process range-Doppler data and use self-supervised training neural network} to use neural network to process range-Doppler data and use self-supervised training neural network. Doing so would provide a baseband processing and image reconstruction so as to generating accurate high - resolution radar - based perception, as recognized by Chen (‘798) {[0033] lines 1-2 (Fig.29, a baseband processing and image reconstruction pipeline); [0422] lines 7-8 (generating accurate high - resolution radar - based perception .)}.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 6, shown above.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amihood (‘956) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Capraro et al . (US 2018/0074185, hereafter Capraro).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Amihood (‘956) discloses that in the method, the obtaining, based on a plurality of target echo signals received in a sub-time period before the target moment, target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals comprises:
obtaining, based on the plurality of target echo signals, a spectrum data group corresponding to each target echo signal { Fig.6 (see mark below)},
PNG
media_image5.png
496
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the spectrum data group comprises a plurality of pieces of spectrum data, and the plurality of pieces of spectrum data correspond to a plurality of frequencies { Fig.6 (FFT); [077] lines 1-2 from bottom (the complex radar data into a frequency-domain representation.); Examiner’s note: FFT for “the plurality of pieces of spectrum data correspond to a plurality of frequencies”};
; and
obtaining, { Fig.6 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image5.png
496
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Amihood (‘956) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “performing normalization processing on each spectrum data group, to obtain a plurality of processed spectrum data groups”. In the same field of endeavor, Capraro (‘185) discloses that
performing normalization processing on each spectrum data group, to obtain a plurality of processed spectrum data groups {[0102] lines 1-4 (as the range increases, the range-Doppler cells tend to include more pixels; thus, the range-Doppler cell intensity measure—for clustering purposes—must be normalized.)}
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. as the range increases, the range-Doppler cells tend to include more pixels; thus, the range-Doppler cell intensity measure—for clustering purposes—must be normalized) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. the range-Doppler cell intensity measure is normalized) and result in an improved system (e.g. accounts for the variation in area of the different range Doppler cells so as to use the same signal characteristics that are used in target detection for any range, as recognized by Capraro (‘185) {[0015] lines 5-6 (obtain the clutter map using the same signal characteristics that are used in target detection); [0102] lines 6-7 (accounts for the variation in area of the different range Doppler cells)}).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 7, the combination of Amihood (‘956) and Capraro (‘185) discloses that in the method, the obtaining, based on the plurality of target echo signals, a spectrum data group corresponding to each target echo signal comprises:
calculating an intermediate frequency signal corresponding to the target echo signal {see Amihood (‘956) Fig.4 item 428 (Digital Beat Signal)}; and
performing N-point Fourier transform on the intermediate frequency signal, to obtain a spectrum data group corresponding to the target echo signal, wherein the spectrum data group comprises N pieces of data, and N is a positive integer {see Amihood (‘956) Fig.6 item 428-1 (Digital Beat Signal), 606-1 (1D FFT), 610-1 (2D FFT), 614-1 (Pre-Processed Complex Radar Data per Feature Frame 614-1) ,620 (Range-Doppler Map), see mark below for “a spectrum data group”}.
PNG
media_image5.png
496
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 16-17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 7-8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 16-17 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 7-8, respectively, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210325509 discloses that “the feature value corresponding to the target moment is a variance or a standard deviation of the target spectrum data separately corresponding to the plurality of target echo signals” {[0006] lines 4-9 (performing a range FFT on the received reflected chirps to generate range data ; detecting a target based on the range data ; detecting movement of the detected target by calculating a standard deviation of the range data at a range of the detected target)}, which further support the rejections of claims 3 and 12.
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
Prosecution Insights