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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The
application claims benefit to the foreign priority date of 27 September 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/04/2024 and 11/06/2025 have been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element N1 from Figure 16 is not mentioned in the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 (line 1) recites "wherein performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation", which should recite "wherein the performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation".
Claim 2 (line 5-6) recites “corresponding to the antenna”, which should recite “corresponding to each antenna”.
Claim 2 (line 7) recites "performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation", which should recite "performing the delay-Doppler spectrum calculation".
Claim 3 (line 1) recites "wherein performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation", which should recite "wherein the performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation".
Claim 3 (line 5) recites "performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation", which should recite "performing the delay-Doppler spectrum calculation".
Claim 4 (line 1) recites "wherein performing channel impulse response calculation", which should recite "wherein the performing channel impulse response calculation".
Claim 5 (line 1) recites "wherein performing directional filtering", which should recite "wherein the performing directional filtering".
Claim 7 (line 1) recites "wherein performing partitioning, prioritizing, and extraction", which should recite "wherein the performing partitioning, prioritizing, and extraction".
Claim 8 (line 1) recites "wherein performing prioritizing", which should recite "wherein the performing prioritizing".
Claim 9 (line 1) recites "wherein determining a moving trajectory", which should recite "wherein the determining a moving trajectory".
Claim 9 (line 4) recites "determining timing of all", which should recite "determining the timing of all".
Claim 10 (line 1) recites "wherein after determining a moving target", which should recite "wherein after the determining a moving target".
Claim 10 (line 6) recites "spectra of prioritized targets", which should recite "spectra of the prioritized targets".
Claim 10 (line 6) recites "in partitions corresponding to", which should recite "in the partitions corresponding to".
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.
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “screening all the synthetic delay-Doppler spectra” in line 8. The term 'screening' is unclear as it is not defined in the claim or the specification and it is not a term of art. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite as “Looking and selecting all the synthetic delay Doppler spectra”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 inherit the deficiencies of claim 5.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yonekawa (US 2023/0243950 A1), hereinafter Yonekawa.
Regarding claim 1, Yonekawa discloses,
A partition trajectory target sensing method, comprising:
performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation for a received signal of each sensing signal period to obtain comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra of the received signal which comprise information of all targets, wherein the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectrum comprises angle information (see Fig. 4, elements 51-1 to 51-n, 107, paragraphs [0077], [0081], [0089], “…an azimuth angle estimation unit 107…”, and “…and output speed-range maps 51-1 to n…”. Further see paragraphs [0083]-[0086] teaching processing receive signals with their respective transmitted signal);
performing partitioning, prioritizing, and extraction of the angle information on the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra to obtain delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 208, 81-1 to 81-n, paragraphs [0186]-[0187], “…process of selecting a region (pixel region) that should be subjected to the azimuth angle estimation process…”);
determining a moving trajectory according to timing of the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of the prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 209, 83, paragraph [0243]); and
determining a moving target according to the moving trajectory (see Fig. 5, and paragraphs [0097]-[0107] teaching discriminating a moving target such as a car from a stationary object such as a side wall/roadway guard rail).
Regarding claim 7, Yonekawa, as shown above, discloses claim 1.
Yonekawa further discloses,
partitioning the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra to obtain a plurality of partitions, wherein the partition comprises a plurality of pieces of delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data (see Fig. 8, elements 208, 81-1 to 81-n, paragraphs [0186]-[0187], “…process of selecting a region (pixel region) that should be subjected to the azimuth angle estimation process…”);
performing prioritizing on all the delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to each of the partitions according to a target number to obtain prioritized delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to the partition (see paragraph [0223], “…on the basis of the cluster representative value that is set by the cluster representative value selection unit 254, only a cluster having a representative value satisfying a predetermined condition may be selected as the azimuth angle estimation target region (cluster), from the clusters that are set by the clustering processing unit 253…”); and
performing extraction of the angle information on all the prioritized delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data in the partitions to obtain the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of the prioritized targets in the partitions, wherein each of the prioritized delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponds to one prioritized target (see Fig. 8, elements 208, 81-1 to 81-n, paragraphs [0186]-[0187], “…By using the “azimuth angle estimation region selection speed-range maps 81-1 to n”, the selected-region-limited azimuth angle estimation unit 208 executes the azimuth angle estimation process on only the region (pixel region) selected by the azimuth angle estimation region selection unit 207…”).
Regarding claim 12, Yonekawa discloses,
A communication device, comprising: (see paragraph [0018]-[0021], “…a program that can be provided by a storage medium or a communication medium…”)
at least one processor (see paragraph [0018]-[0021], “…processing corresponding to the program is realized on the information processing apparatus or the computer system.…”); and
at least one memory, configured for storing at least one program (see paragraph [0018]-[0021], “…a program that can be provided by a storage medium…”),
wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform a partition trajectory target sensing method, the method comprising (see paragraphs [0018]-[0021], “…a program for causing a signal processing device to execute signal processing…”):
performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation for a received signal of each sensing signal period to obtain comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra of the received signal which comprise information of all targets, wherein the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectrum comprises angle information (see Fig. 4, elements 51-1 to 51-n, 107, paragraphs [0077], [0081], [0089], “…an azimuth angle estimation unit 107…”, and “…and output speed-range maps 51-1 to n…”. Further see paragraphs [0083]-[0086] teaching processing receive signals with their respective transmitted signal);
performing partitioning, prioritizing, and extraction of the angle information on the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra to obtain delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 208, 81-1 to 81-n, paragraphs [0186]-[0187], “…process of selecting a region (pixel region) that should be subjected to the azimuth angle estimation process…”);
determining a moving trajectory according to timing of the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of the prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 209, 83, paragraph [0243]; and
determining a moving target according to the moving trajectory (see Fig. 5, and paragraphs [0097]-[0107] teaching discriminating a moving target such as a car from a stationary object such as a side wall/roadway guard rail).
Regarding claim 13, Yonekawa discloses,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a processor-executable program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a partition trajectory target sensing method, the method comprising (see paragraphs [0018]-[0021], “…a program for causing a signal processing device to execute signal processing…” and “…a program that can be provided by a storage medium or a communication medium that provides a variety of program codes in a computer-readable format, to an information processing apparatus or a computer system capable of executing the program codes. By providing such a program in a computer-readable format, processing corresponding to the program is realized on the information processing apparatus or the computer system…”):
performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation for a received signal of each sensing signal period to obtain comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra of the received signal which comprise information of all targets, wherein the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectrum comprises angle information (see Fig. 4, elements 51-1 to 51-n, 107, paragraphs [0077], [0081], [0089], “…an azimuth angle estimation unit 107…”, and “…and output speed-range maps 51-1 to n…”. Further see paragraphs [0083]-[0086] teaching processing receive signals with their respective transmitted signal);
performing partitioning, prioritizing, and extraction of the angle information on the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra to obtain delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 208, 81-1 to 81-n, paragraphs [0186]-[0187], “…process of selecting a region (pixel region) that should be subjected to the azimuth angle estimation process…”);
determining a moving trajectory according to timing of the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of the prioritized targets in the partitions (see Fig. 8, elements 209, 83, paragraph [0243]; and
determining a moving target according to the moving trajectory (see Fig. 5, and paragraphs [0097]-[0107] teaching discriminating a moving target such as a car from a stationary object such as a side wall/roadway guard rail).
Regarding claim 14, Yonekawa, as shown above, discloses claim 1.
Yonekawa further discloses,
A computer program product, comprising a computer program or computer instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer program or computer instructions, when read from the computer-readable storage medium and executed by a processor of a computer device, causes the computer device to perform the partition trajectory target sensing method of claim 1 (see paragraphs [0018]-[0021], “…a program for causing a signal processing device to execute signal processing…” and “…a program that can be provided by a storage medium or a communication medium that provides a variety of program codes in a computer-readable format, to an information processing apparatus or a computer system capable of executing the program codes. By providing such a program in a computer-readable format, processing corresponding to the program is realized on the information processing apparatus or the computer system…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa (US 2023/0243950 A1) in view of Guey et al. (US 2007/0263752 A1), hereinafter Guey.
Regarding claim 2, Yonekawa, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Yonekawa does not teach the limitation of claim 2.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Guey teaches,
performing channel impulse response calculation for a received signal of each sensing signal period received by each antenna to obtain a channel impulse response vector corresponding to the antenna (see Fig. 2-4, paragraphs [0002] and [0019], “…estimate of the channel impulse response g(t, .tau.) is used to properly reconstruct transmitted signals, e.g., to properly restore amplitude and phase information of transmitted symbols…” and “…by converting the delay-Doppler channel response estimate to a time-varying channel impulse response estimate (t, .tau.)…” of Guey); and
performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation for all the channel impulse response vectors corresponding to all the antennas to obtain the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra of the received signal which comprise the information of all the targets (see Fig. 2-4, paragraphs [0002] and [0019], “…estimate of the channel impulse response g(t, .tau.) is used to properly reconstruct transmitted signals, e.g., to properly restore amplitude and phase information of transmitted symbols…” and “…by converting the delay-Doppler channel response estimate to a time-varying channel impulse response estimate (t, .tau.)…” of Guey).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Guey into the invention of Yonekawa. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been obvious to modify Yonekawa such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Guey in order to improve the method of estimating channel response in a wireless communication device/network (see paragraphs [0007]-[0009] of Guey).
Regarding claim 3, Yonekawa in view of Guey, as shown above, teaches claim 2.
Guey further teaches,
performing delay-Doppler spectrum calculation for the channel impulse response vector corresponding to each antenna to obtain an initial delay-Doppler spectrum comprising the information of all the targets and corresponding to the antenna (see Fig. 2-4, paragraphs [0002] and [0019], “…estimate of the channel impulse response g(t, .tau.) is used to properly reconstruct transmitted signals, e.g., to properly restore amplitude and phase information of transmitted symbols…” and “…by converting the delay-Doppler channel response estimate to a time-varying channel impulse response estimate (t, .tau.)…” of Guey); and
performing directional filtering on all the initial delay-Doppler spectra corresponding to all the antennas to obtain the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra of the received signal which comprise the information of all the targets (see paragraphs [0035], “…Given sufficient noise filtering, the transmitted signal may be recovered from the received signal by undoing or negating the effect the channel had on the transmitted signal, e.g., by multiplying the received signal with the complex conjugate of the time-frequency response of the channel…” of Guey).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Guey into the invention of Yonekawa. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been obvious to modify Yonekawa such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Guey in order to improve the method of estimating channel response in a wireless communication device/network (see paragraphs [0007]-[0009] of Guey).
Regarding claim 4, Yonekawa in view of Guey, as shown above, teaches claim 2.
Guey further teaches,
sampling each received signal received by each of the antennas based on a preset sampling period to obtain a plurality of pieces of sample data (see paragraphs [0028]-[0029], “…the delay-Doppler image is calculated discretely, e.g., by sampling the continuous delay-Doppler image function given by equation (5). Sampling of the continuous delay-Doppler image function may be approximated by a series of Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) operations…” and “…delta..sub..tau. and .delta..sub..nu. denote the sampling interval in the delay and Doppler domains, respectively…” of Guey); and
for each sensing signal period, obtaining the channel impulse response vector corresponding to each of the antennas according to the plurality of pieces of sample data corresponding to the antennas and a sensing signal sent in the sensing signal period (see paragraphs [0028]-[0030], “…the delay-Doppler image is calculated discretely, e.g., by sampling the continuous delay-Doppler image function given by equation (5). Sampling of the continuous delay-Doppler image function may be approximated by a series of Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) operations…” and “…delta..sub..tau. and .delta..sub..nu. denote the sampling interval in the delay and Doppler domains, respectively…” of Guey).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Guey into the invention of Yonekawa. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been obvious to modify Yonekawa such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Guey in order to improve the method of estimating channel response in a wireless communication device/network (see paragraphs [0007]-[0009] of Guey).
Regarding claim 5, Yonekawa in view of Guey, as shown above, teaches claim 3.
Yonekawa further discloses,
acquiring a plurality of pieces of angle information (see Fig. 12, step S102, paragraphs [0253]-[0256] selecting a region of azimuth information);
calculating, for each sensing signal period, synthetic delay-Doppler spectra at angles corresponding to the angle information for the initial delay-Doppler spectra corresponding to all the antennas (see Fig. 12, step S103, paragraphs [0257]-[0261] calculating target peaks from the selected region); and
screening all the synthetic delay-Doppler spectra of the sensing signal period to obtain the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra comprising the information of all the targets in the sensing signal period (see Fig. 12, steps S105-S106, paragraphs [0267]-[0273] “screening” of the data to generate select clusters for azimuth estimation).
Regarding claim 6, Yonekawa in view of Guey, as shown above, teaches claim 5.
Yonekawa further discloses,
wherein each delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data in the comprehensive delay-Doppler spectrum is delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to a maximum amplitude in the synthetic delay-Doppler spectra corresponding to all the angles (see Fig. 12, step S103, paragraphs [0257]-[0261] calculating target peaks from the selected region).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa (US 2023/0243950 A1) in view of Kishigami et al. (US 2015/0369912 A1), hereinafter Kishigami.
Regarding claim 9, Yonekawa, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Yonekawa does not teach the limitation of claim 9.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kishigami teaches,
determining timing of all the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra according to a plurality of sensing signal periods (see Fig. 6A-6B, paragraphs [0019], [0071], [0135], [0137] of Kishigami); and
obtaining at least one moving trajectory through curve fitting on all the delay-angle-of-arrival spectra according to the timing (see Fig. 26A-26C, paragraphs [0282]-[0283], “…estimated in FIG. 27B to the distribution line obtained by finding the regression line…” of Kishigami).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kishigami into the invention of Yonekawa. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been obvious to modify Yonekawa such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Kishigami in order to improve the detection accuracy of the relative speed of the target (see paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0326] of Kishigami).
Regarding claim 11, Yonekawa in view of Kishigami, as shown above, discloses claim 9.
Yonekawa further discloses,
in a plurality of comprehensive delay-Doppler spectra, in response to presence of a target with a relative position change less than a preset threshold among the prioritized targets after the partitioning, determining the target as an interference target (see paragraphs [0216]-[0217], “…The cluster representative value selection unit 254 acquires a representative value of a size and (a speed and a distance) of the cluster that is set by the clustering processing unit 253. This representative value is used to determine what type of object the cluster corresponds to…” and “…the speed obtained as the representative value of the cluster varies depending on the object type corresponding to the cluster, such as a case of a building such as a wall, a case of a person, and a case of a vehicle…”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa (US 2023/0243950 A1) in view of Nishida (US 2018/0239015 A1), hereinafter Nishida.
Regarding claim 10, Yonekawa, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Yonekawa does not teach the limitation of claim 10.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nishida teaches,
determining an inertial movement trend of the moving target according to the movement trajectory (see Fig. 1, elements 105-106, paragraph [0074], “…The target condition determining circuit 106 determines whether the target is in a stationary condition or a moving condition using a ground velocity Vob of the target…” of Nishida); and
determining position information of the moving target according to the inertial movement trend and delay-angle-of-arrival spectra of prioritized targets in partitions corresponding to a next sensing signal period (see Fig. 1, element 105, paragraphs [0069]-[0072], “…during the tracking processing of each period, the tracking circuit 105 tracks information on a target relating to the same target as information on a target (target information) including at least the position output by the position calculating circuit 1052, and attaches a label representing an identifier of the target to a measurement result obtained in relation to the target…” of Nishida).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Nishida into the invention of Yonekawa. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose techniques for signal processing and target detection. It would have been obvious to modify Yonekawa such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Nishida in order to be able to specifically execute object analysis processing such as whether or not it is a moving object (see paragraphs [0007]-[0011] of Nishida).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, Yonekawa, as shown above, teaches claim 7.
However, Yonekawa, does not disclose,
sorting amplitudes of all the delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to each of the partitions in a descending or an ascending order of values; and
performing prioritizing in a descending order on the plurality of sorted delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to the partition according to the target number to obtain the prioritized delay-Doppler spectrum 2-tuple data corresponding to the partition.
Therefore, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach,
render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the
combination of the claimed features of claim 8.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the
combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as
claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on
improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ding et al. (US 2025/0132787 A1): discloses a sensing processing method and apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMISH P. HATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9508. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 8.30 am to 5.30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270 7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIMISH P. HATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights