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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim(s) 21, Applicant's claim(s) encompass an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. For instance, Yomo in view of Miranda and Thome fail to disclose specifically ‘a first vector from the first antenna element of the first transmitting and receiving unit to the fourth antenna element of the first transmitting and receiving unit is equal to a second vector from the third antenna element of the second transmitting’.
As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recited “transmitting and receiving units as a reslevant second receiving”. ‘reslevant’ appears to be a spelling error for ‘relevant’. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are 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.
Specifically, the limitations “relevant” and “relative” are not a limited term of art, nor has the Applicant specifically defined it. Non-limiting examples include ‘relevant first transmitting and receiving unit’, ‘relevant absolute tilt’, ‘relevant first signal path’, ‘relative tilt’. Since these limitations are undefined and unrestricted by the Applicant, the Examiner asserts that its scope is undefined. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret such limitation as ‘any’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 15-20, 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yomo et al. (US 20180088221 hereinafter Yomo) in view of Miranda (US 20190377065) Thome et al. and further in view of (US 20060220951 hereinafter Thome).
Regarding claim 15, Yomo teaches A computer device for a radar system equipped with at least two transmitting and receiving units, each having at least two antenna elements, the computer device comprising (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1):
an electronic device configured such that, by using the electronic device, from a plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1),
at least one first radar signal transmitted by a first transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1),
reflected at an object position outside the radar system and received by a second transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system (Abstract “the radars A and B operate as bistatic radars”), and
in each case one second radar signal transmitted by the second transmitting and receiving unit, reflected at the object position and received by the first transmitting and receiving unit, can be selected, for which it can be recognized or read out using information stored on a storage unit of the computer device that (fig 2; 0005 “a synthesizer that synthesizes a result of the direction-of-arrival estimation in the bistatic radar mode of the first radar apparatus and a result of the direction-of-arrival estimation in the bistatic radar mode of the second radar apparatus”),
in the case of the transmitting and receiving units of the radar system being present without a tilt (0035 “It should be noted that, in the first embodiment, it is assumed that the line of sight of the radar A 101 coincides with the line of sight of the radar B 102.” [a line of sight of a radar corresponds to an optical length and since both lines of sight coincide, there is no tilt]),
(0077 “phase difference detector 313 detects the average phase difference of all branches of the radar A 101, thereby making it possible to better reduce the influence of noise than in a case of detecting phase differences independently for each separate branch.”),
alignment information with regard to a relative tilt of the first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the second transmitting and receiving unit can be specified (0081 “FIG. 4 shows a block configuration of a multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment. As shown in FIG. 4, the multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment further includes a line-of-sight difference calculator 401, an other-radar position observer 402, a radar-B installation coordinate setter 403 in addition to the components of the multi-radar system 100 according to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 2.”; 0082 “The line-of-sight difference calculator 401 calculates shifts in the lines of sight of the radars A 101 and B 102 (a horizontal shift being hereinafter referred to as “θ”, a vertical shift being hereinafter referred to as “φ”).”).
While Yomo discusses phase differences, Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
wherein the electronic device is additionally configured such that, using the electronic device, taking into account a self-ascertained or provided phase difference between the first radar signal and the second radar signal (Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thome teaches
a probable first optical length of a first signal path of the first radar signal is equal to a probable second optical length of a second signal path of the second radar signal (Thome 0097 “the bistatic returns have exactly the same path length at any instant in time. Therefore, if transmitted pulses from the paired radar and the reference radar were transmitted at exactly the same time (and they are generally not) the bistatic returns should be received in each radar with exactly the same time delay,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thome with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the target detection for a radar (Thome 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thome merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Thome disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Yomo teaches The computer device according to claim 15, wherein the radar system is equipped with n transmitting and receiving units (fig 1),
each having at least two antenna elements, with n being a natural number greater than or equal to 3 (0178 “each of the multi-radar systems 100, 100a, and 100b may be configured to include three or more radar apparatuses.”),
the electronic device being configured such that, using the electronic device, from the plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system, for each of the n transmitting and receiving units as a relevant first transmitting and receiving unit and each of the n-1 further transmitting and receiving units as a reslevant second receiving unit (0038 “Each of the radars A 101 and B 102 simply operates as a monostatic radar and, furthermore, also operates as a bistatic radar that estimates the distance and direction of the target T by receiving electromagnetic waves transmitted from the other radar”),
a relevant first radar signal and a relevant second radar signal can be selected, for which it can be recognized or read out using the stored information that, in the case of the transmitting and receiving units of the radar system being present without a tilt (0035 “It should be noted that, in the first embodiment, it is assumed that the line of sight of the radar A 101 coincides with the line of sight of the radar B 102.” [a line of sight of a radar corresponds to an optical length and since both lines of sight coincide, there is no tilt]),
Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
a probable first optical length of a relevant first signal path of the relevant first radar signal is equal to a probable second optical length of a relevant second signal path of the relevant second radar signal (Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thome teaches
using the electronic device, taking into account a relevant phase difference between the relevant first radar signal and the relevant second radar signal the alignment information with regard to a relevant relative tilt of the relevant first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the relevant second transmitting and receiving unit can be specified (Thome 0097 “the bistatic returns have exactly the same path length at any instant in time. Therefore, if transmitted pulses from the paired radar and the reference radar were transmitted at exactly the same time (and they are generally not) the bistatic returns should be received in each radar with exactly the same time delay,”; Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thome with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the target detection for a radar (Thome 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thome merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Thome disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Yomo teaches The computer device according to claim 16, wherein the electronic device is configured such that, if for at least two transmitting and receiving units a relative tilt with respect to one another equal to zero is specified as at least part of the alignment information (0098 “The first embodiment described above assumes a case where the lines of sight of the radars A 101 and B 102 coincide with each other.”), using the electronic device at least one of the at least two transmitting and receiving units with the relative tilt with respect to one another equal to zero can be selected as a reference unit,
an absolute tilt of the at least one reference unit with respect to a predetermined target alignment equal to zero can be specified as part of the alignment information (0080 “The first embodiment described above has described a case where the lines of sight of the radars A 101 and B 102 coincide with each other. A second embodiment described below describes a case where the lines of sight of the radars A 101 and B 102 do not coincide with each other.”),
and, if at least one of the transmitting and receiving units is not selected as a reference unit, a relative tilt of the at least one transmitting and receiving unit not selected as a reference unit in relation to the at least one reference unit can be specified as (0090 “radars A 101 and B 102 and the polar-coordinate-orthogonal coordinate transformers 232, 233, 236, and 237 perform coordinate transformation in consideration of the shifts in the lines of sight thus calculated. This allows the multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment to, even in a case where shifts has occurred in the lines of sight of the radars A 101 and B 102, operate without being affected by the shifts.”)
While Yomo discusses phase differences, Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
an absolute tilt of the relevant transmitting and receiving unit with respect to the predetermined target alignment as part of the alignment information (Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Yomo teaches The computer device according to claim 17,
Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
wherein the electronic device is configured such that, using the electronic device, at least one control signal can be output to a separate alignment device of the relevant transmitting and receiving unit for at least one of the transmitting and receiving units, taking into account the specified alignment information with regard to their relevant absolute tilt with respect to the predetermined target alignment, such that an actual alignment of the relevant transmitting and receiving unit can be adjusted using the controlled alignment device in accordance with the target alignment (0012 “FIG. 3 is a plot of expected versus actual radar phase differences between radar waves captured by a plurality of radar devices according to the principles of the present disclosure”; 0020 “In one exemplary implementation, the actuators 408 are integrated into the radar devices 104 such that the radar devices 104 are able to self-align in response to the alignment instructions.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Yomo teaches The computer device according to claim 16, wherein the electronic device is configured such that environmental information with regard to at least a partial environment of the radar system can be specified using the electronic device, taking into account the plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system and additionally taking into account a predetermined evaluation program, and wherein the evaluation program can be redefined using the electronic device taking into account the specified alignment information with respect to the relative tilt of the relevant first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the relevant second transmitting and receiving unit and/or with regard to the relevant absolute tilt of each transmitting and receiving unit with respect to a predetermined target orientation (0049 “A DOA estimation result includes, for example, positional information at a point of detection of the target T within the detection object region, an reflection intensity (intensity vector) at each point of detection as determined by an angle, a relative velocity (line-of-sight speed information) at a point of detection with reference to the radars line of sight”; 0081 “FIG. 4 shows a block configuration of a multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment. As shown in FIG. 4, the multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment further includes a line-of-sight difference calculator 401, an other-radar position observer 402, a radar-B installation coordinate setter 403 in addition to the components of the multi-radar system 100 according to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 2”).
Regarding claim 20, Yomo teaches The computer device according to claim 15, wherein the first radar signal is emitted by a first antenna element of the first transmitting and receiving unit, reflected at an object position and received by a second antenna element of the second transmitting and receiving unit and the second radar signal is emitted by a third antenna element of the second transmitting and receiving unit, reflected at the object position and received by a fourth antenna element of the first transmitting and receiving unit (fig 10; 0040 “The paths of electromagnetic waves indicated by the arrows A2 and B2 are the paths of electromagnetic waves in a case where the radars A 101 and B 102 operate as bistatic radars.”).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 15. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 23, Yomo teaches The radar system according to claim 22, wherein the radar system is a radar sensor system and/or a cooperative radar sensor system (fig 1 [radar sensor system]).
Regarding claim 24, Yomo teaches A method for examining a radar system equipped with at least two transmitting and receiving units, each having at least two antenna elements, the method comprising the following steps (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1):
selecting at least one first radar signal, which is emitted by a first transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1),
reflected at an object position outside the radar system and received by a second transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system (Title “MULTI-RADAR SYSTEM”; fig 1), and
in each case a second radar signal, which is emitted by the second transmitting and receiving unit, reflected at the object position and received by the first transmitting and receiving unit, from a plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system such that (fig 2; 0005 “a synthesizer that synthesizes a result of the direction-of-arrival estimation in the bistatic radar mode of the first radar apparatus and a result of the direction-of-arrival estimation in the bistatic radar mode of the second radar apparatus”),
in the case of the transmitting and receiving units of the radar system being present without a tilt (0035 “It should be noted that, in the first embodiment, it is assumed that the line of sight of the radar A 101 coincides with the line of sight of the radar B 102.” [a line of sight of a radar corresponds to an optical length and since both lines of sight coincide, there is no tilt]),
specifying alignment information with regard to a relative tilt of the first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the second transmitting and receiving unit (0081 “FIG. 4 shows a block configuration of a multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment. As shown in FIG. 4, the multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment further includes a line-of-sight difference calculator 401, an other-radar position observer 402, a radar-B installation coordinate setter 403 in addition to the components of the multi-radar system 100 according to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 2.”,
While Yomo discusses a phase difference, Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
ascertaining a phase difference between the first radar signal and the second radar signal (Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thome teaches
a probable first optical length of a first signal path of the first radar signal is equal to a probable second optical length of a second signal path of the second radar signal (Thome 0097 “the bistatic returns have exactly the same path length at any instant in time. Therefore, if transmitted pulses from the paired radar and the reference radar were transmitted at exactly the same time (and they are generally not) the bistatic returns should be received in each radar with exactly the same time delay,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thome with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the target detection for a radar (Thome 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thome merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Thome disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 16. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 17. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 18. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, Yomo teaches A method for determining environmental information with regard to at least a partial environment of a radar system (Abstract “A multi-radar system is configured such that radars A and B perform synchronization so that their transmission timings and frequency bands are substantially the same.”; Abstract “the radars A and B operate as bistatic radars, the radars A and B yield the same detection results from reflected waves from a place on a surface of a target T where the detection object regions of the radars A and B overlap” [the environmental detection of radar A and radar B correspond to a partial environmental of a radar system]) equipped with at least two transmitting and receiving units (fig 1), each having at least two antenna elements, the method comprising the following steps (fig 1):
specifying the environmental information with regard to at least the partial environment of the radar system (fig 1; Abstract “radars A and B operating as bistatic radars. This results in improved target detection performance.),
taking into account a plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system and additionally taking into account a predetermined evaluation program (0026 “A radar apparatus having a predetermined resolution can sense a target with satisfactory accuracy in a case where the size of the target is sufficiently large as compared with the resolution of the radar apparatus”);
examining the radar system by:
selecting at least one first radar signal, which is emitted by a first transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system, reflected at an object position outside the radar system and received by a second transmitting and receiving unit of the radar system (0040 “radar A 101, scatted forward by the target T, and received by the radar B 102, and the arrow B2 indicates the path of electromagnetic waves transmitted from the radar B 102, scatted forward by the target T, and received by the radar A 101”), and
in each case a second radar signal, which is emitted by the second transmitting and receiving unit, reflected at the object position and received by the first transmitting and receiving unit (0040 “in FIG. 1, the arrow A2 indicates the path of electromagnetic waves transmitted from the radar A 101, scatted forward by the target T, and received by the radar B 102, and the arrow B2 indicates the path of electromagnetic waves transmitted from the radar B 102, scatted forward by the target T, and received by the radar A 101.”),
from a plurality of radar signals transmitted and received using the radar system such that, in the case of the transmitting and receiving units of the radar system being present without a tilt (0035 “It should be noted that, in the first embodiment, it is assumed that the line of sight of the radar A 101 coincides with the line of sight of the radar B 102.” [a line of sight of a radar corresponds to an optical length and since both lines of sight coincide, there is no tilt]),
specifying alignment information with regard to a relative tilt of the first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the second transmitting and receiving unit (0081 “As shown in FIG. 4, the multi-radar system 100a according to the second embodiment further includes a line-of-sight difference calculator 401, an other-radar position observer 402, a radar-B installation coordinate setter 403 in addition to the components of the multi-radar system 100 according to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 2.”),
redefining the evaluation program taking into account the specified alignment information with regard to the relative tilt of the first transmitting and receiving unit in relation to the second transmitting and receiving unit and/or with regard to a relevant absolute tilt of each transmitting and receiving unit with respect to a predetermined target alignment (0083 “transforming, into orthogonal coordinates, the positional information and line-of-sight relative velocity information stored in the form of polar coordinates in the memories 213, 214, 223, and 224 of the radars A 101 and B 102, the polar-coordinate-orthogonal coordinate transformers 232, 233, 236, and 237 transform the positional information from polar representations into orthogonal representations in consideration of the shifts in the lines of sight as calculated by the line-of-sight difference calculator 401.”).
While Yomo discusses a phase difference, Yomo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miranda teaches
ascertaining a phase difference between the first radar signal and the second radar signal (Abstract “determine actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, and based on the determined actual phase differences between the reflected radar waves, the base alignment, and predetermined alignments of a remainder of the plurality of radar devices, generate and output instructions for adjusting the alignment of at least some of the remainder of the plurality of radar devices.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Miranda with the teachings of Yomo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the alignment for multi-radar systems (Miranda 0015). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miranda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Yomo and Miranda disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thome teaches
a probable first optical length of a first signal path of the first radar signal is equal to a probable second optical length of a second signal path of the second radar signal
(Thome 0097 “the bistatic returns have exactly the same path length at any instant in time. Therefore, if transmitted pulses from the paired radar and the reference radar were transmitted at exactly the same time (and they are generally not) the bistatic returns should be received in each radar with exactly the same time delay,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thome with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously the target detection for a radar (Thome 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thome merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Thome disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Klar et al. (US 9063214) discloses “A radar sensor for motor vehicles includes a plurality of transmission and receiving antennas, which differ in their azimuthal directivity characteristic and to which a separate mixer is assigned, which mixes a transmitted signal with a received signal, at least one of the mixers being a transfer mixer, and at least one other of the mixers having a lower transfer output, wherein the assignment of the transmission and receiving antennas is asymmetrical with respect to the mixers differing in their transfer output. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights