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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 9 of 17) about the objection to the Drawing, the objection has been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 9 of 17) about the objections to claims 4-8, 13-17, the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 9-12 of 17) about the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have not been overcome by the amendment. Examiner disagrees the argument regarding “a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value” in claims 1, 9-10 and the arguments regarding claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 because:
1) For the argument regarding “a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value” in claims 1, 9-10 (see REMARKS page 10-11 of 17), the claimed language is “a frequency whose range direction value”, in which “whose range direction value” causes indefinite because i) it is not clear whether or not the “a frequency” has other “direction value” in addition to the “range direction value”; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “a frequency” is a vector which has “range direction value”; iii) it is not clear how “a frequency”, which is one value, has “range direction value”. The argument regarding FFT in REMARKS page 10-11 of 17 does not answer the questions of i)-iii) above. The FFT calculation as argued in REMARKS page 10-11 of 17 only generates a spectrum in frequency domain, that is a frequency in range spectrum. Clarified claimed language is required.
2) For the argument regarding claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 (see REMARKS page 11-12 of 17), the claimed language is “determining a first time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence” in claims 4 and 13 and “determining a second time period from the first moment to the second moment based on the feature value sequence” in claims 5 and 14, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that word “moment” is an exact, single instant when something happens, which is a precise spot on a timeline. “from the first moment to the second moment” is a fixed time period. If “the first moment” and “the second moment” are known, the “a first time period” and the “a second time period” are known, both equal to the time period “from the first moment to the second moment”. Therefore it is not clear whether “the first moment” and “the second moment” is known before or after obtaining “the feature value sequence” because the “a first time period” and the “a second time period” are determined “based on the feature value sequence”. For claims 5 and 14, the claimed language “determining a second time period” is also indefinite because it is also not clear whether a first time period exists because claims 5 and 14 depends on clams 1 and 10, respectively and “first time period” is not mentioned. Clarified claimed language is required.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 12-14 of 17) about the rejections of claim 1, 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Examiner disagrees because:
1) For the argument regarding “Amihood does not disclose "calculating, based on the received echo signal, a feature value corresponding to each target moment ... to obtain a feature value sequence” (see REMARKS pages 12-13 of 17), Amihood (‘956) does disclose the claimed language “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.)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig.6, target moment is received signal. Fig.6 item 614 shows that:
i) Each of amplitude peaks in Fig.614-1 is interpreted as “a feature value corresponding to each target moment” because each peak is at a range bin corresponding to “a moment”, a time, in received signal, therefore an amplitude peak in Fig.6 is “a value calculated for a moment”, which answer the argument in REMARKS page 13 of 17 lines 2-3 (not a value calculated for a moment.);
ii) item 608-1 saves FFT output from item 606-1, which include “a feature value” calculated “based on the received echo signal” because input of item 606-1 is digital beat signal (see item 428-1) generated “based on the received echo signal” as indicated in Fig.4;
iii) the amplitude peaks, which are interpreted as “feature value”, along chirp in Fig.6 item 614-1 form “a feature value sequence”, which is “sorted in a time order” because chirps are transmitted in a time order, which answer the argument in REMARKS page 13 of 17 lines 11-12 (the feature value sequence recited in claim 1 is a sequence of feature values sorted in a time order).
iv) Regarding argument “Amihood has not been shown to discaloe such a per-moment calculation” (see REMARKS page 13 of 17 line 13), Examiner does not understand the argument because there is no claimed language regarding “per-moment calculation”.
v) Regarding argument “a "target moment" with a "received signal" or with a "beat signal" does not identify any moment in Amihood for which a feature value is calculated from a plurality of echo signals received in a sub-time period comprising that moment” (see REMARKS page 13 of 17 lines 17-20), the amplitude peaks, which are interpreted as “feature value”, along chirp in Fig.6 item 614-1 form “a feature value sequence”, which is “sorted in a time order” because chirps are transmitted in a time order. Each chirp has one FFT output shown in Fig.6 item 614-1. Each FFT calculation use “a plurality of echo signals received in a sub-time period” based on FFT definition, which “comprising that moment” (see peak in one amplitude sequence along range bin in Fig.6 item 614-1).
2) For the argument regarding “Amihood does not disclose target spectrum data '"corresponding to a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value"” (see REMARKS pages 13-14 of 17), Amihood (‘956) Fig.6 item 614-1 is FFT output of beat signal. The range of the range bins in Fig.6 item 614-1 is “a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value” because a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that FFT converts received signal from time domain in a time window to frequency domain in a frequency window. Therefore range of the range bins in Fig.6 item 614-1 is the frequency window, which address the claimed language “a frequency whose range direction value is less than a preset value”. Examiner does not understand the argument regarding “In addition, Amihood teaches away from this limitation because in Amihood the lowest range bin is excluded from the data that it analyzes” (see REMARKS page 13 of 17 line 7 from bottom) and “Amihood therefore neither uses nor contemplates spectrum data at its lowest range bin as the basis for sensing a target.” (see REMARKS page 14 of 17 lines 10-11) because there is no claimed language regarding “lowest range bin”.
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 limitation "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 limitation “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”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that word “moment” is an exact, single instant when something happens, which is a precise spot on a timeline. “from the first moment to the second moment” is a fixed time period. If “the first moment” and “the second moment” are known, the “a first time period” is known, which equal to the time period “from the first moment to the second moment”. Therefore it is not clear whether “the first moment” and “the second moment” is known before or after obtaining “the feature value sequence” because the “a first time period” is determined “based on 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”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation “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”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that word “moment” is an exact, single instant when something happens, which is a precise spot on a timeline. “from the first moment to the second moment” is a fixed time period. If “the first moment” and “the second moment” are known, the “a second time period” is known, which equal to the time period “from the first moment to the second moment”. Therefore it is not clear whether “the first moment” and “the second moment” is known before or after obtaining “the feature value sequence” because the “a second time period” is determined “based on the feature value sequence”. Furthermore, it is also not clear whether a first time period exists because claims 5 and 14 depends on clams 1 and 10, respectively and “first time period” is not mentioned. 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”. 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 of a plurality of target moments, 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: As shown in Fig.6, target moment is received signal. Fig.6 item 614 shows that: i) each of amplitude peaks are “each target moment”; ii) item 608-1 saves FFT output from item 606-1, which is “a feature value” calculated “based on the received echo signal” because input of item 606-1 is digital beat signal (see item 428-1) generated “based on the received echo signal” as indicated in Fig.4; iii) Both FFT data points, which are interpreted as “feature value”, along range bins and along chirp in Fig.6 item 614-1 form “a feature value sequence”.},
PNG
media_image1.png
496
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the feature value sequence comprises the feature values corresponding to the 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
each target moment of the plurality of target moments is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment { Fig.3-1 (chirp 310-1~N)}, wherein
for each target moment of the plurality of target moments, the calculating the feature value corresponding to the 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 of a plurality of target moments, to obtain a feature value sequence,
wherein the feature value sequence comprises the feature values corresponding to the plurality of target moments sorted in a time order, and
each target moment of the plurality of target moments is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment; and
sense a target based on the feature value sequence, wherein
for each target moment of the plurality of target moments, the calculating the feature value corresponding to the 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 of a plurality of target moments, to obtain a feature value sequence,
wherein the feature value sequence comprises the feature values corresponding to the plurality of target moments sorted in a time order, and
each target moment of the plurality of target moments is a moment ranging from the first moment to the second moment; and
sense a target based on the feature value sequence, wherein
for each target moment of the plurality of target moments, the calculating the feature value corresponding to the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the plurality of target echo signals received in the sub-time period before the target moment, the 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, the 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 the 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
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 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights