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 the Claims
Claims 18-33 filed on 25 OCT 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/860,234, filed on 25 OCT 2024, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/EP2023/068182, filed on 3 JUL 2023, and claims priority from foreign application DE10 2022 210 263.0, filed on 28 SEP 2022 in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 OCT 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“evaluation units” in claims 18-22 and 31: structure found in p. 2, lines 12-14
“data distribution unit” in claim 20, 31 and 32: structure found in p. 2, lines 12-14
“central processing device” in claim 22 and 33: structure found in p. 2, lines 12-14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 19, 21-22, 27, 30 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.
Regarding claim 19:
Line 3 recites “evaluation units.” It is unclear to the examiner if the “evaluation units” of claim 19 are intended to be the same as or distinct from the “evaluation units” recited in line 7 of claim 18.
Line 4 recites “an individual evaluation.” It is unclear to the examiner if the “individual evaluation” of claim 19 is intended to be the same as or distinct from the “individual evaluation” recited in line 8 of claim 18.
Line 5 recites “an overall evaluation.” It is unclear to the examiner if the “overall evaluation” of claim 19 is intended to be the same as or distinct from the “overall evaluation” recited in line 9 of claim 19.
For the purpose of prosecution, claim 19 has been interpreted as “wherein the sensor data are partitioned according to distance ranges, Doppler/speed ranges and/or angular ranges of a radar signal being used and the data of the different ranges are transmitted to the different evaluation units which then each carry out either the coherent evaluation or the non-coherent evaluation, and wherein the coherent and the non-coherent evaluations are combined to form the overall evaluation.”
Regarding claim 21:
Line 2 recites “evaluation units.” It is unclear to the examiner if the “evaluation units” of claim 21 are intended to be the same as or distinct from the “evaluation units” recited in line 7 of claim 18.
Line 3 recites “the evaluation.” It is unclear to the examiner if “the evaluation” intends to refer to the individual evaluation in lines 7-8 of claim 1, or the overall evaluation recited in line 9 of claim 1.
For the purpose of prosecution, claim 21 has been interpreted as “wherein the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently are distributed to the evaluation units, wherein the evaluation units are disposed in the radar sensors and the evaluation units of the sensors carry out the individual evaluations.”
Regarding claim 22:
Line 3 recites “evaluation units.” It is unclear to the examiner if the “evaluation units” of claim 22 are intended to be the same as or distinct from the “evaluation units” recited in line 7 of claim 18.
Line 3 recites “the evaluation.” It is unclear to the examiner if “the evaluation” intends to refer to the individual evaluation in lines 7-8 of claim 1, or the overall evaluation recited in line 9 of claim 1.
For the purpose of prosecution, claim 22 has been interpreted as “wherein the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently are transmitted to a central computing device, wherein the evaluation units are disposed in the central computing device and carry out the individual evaluations.”
Regarding claim 27:
The term “lower” line 2 of claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner what the “constant false alarm rate” is “lower” than.
The term “common” in line 2 of claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner to what the “targets” are “common” to.
For the purpose of prosecution, claim 27 has been interpreted as “wherein the overall evaluation includes a further evaluation with a lower constant false alarm rate than the adapted evaluation for combining target detections.”
Regarding claim 30:
Line 1 of claim 30 recites, “the evaluation.” It is unclear to the examiner which of the previously recited evaluations is being referred to – the “distance and Doppler evaluation” in line 2 of claim 29, the “complete evaluation” in line 3 of claim 29, the “individual evaluation” in line 8 of claim 18, or the “overall evaluation” in line 9 of claim 18.
The term “higher” line 3 of claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner what the “angular resolution” is “higher” than.
For the purpose of prosecution, claim 30 has been interpreted as “wherein the overall evaluation includes a coherent cooperative angle estimation in a definable range with a higher angular resolution than the angle estimation of the preprocessing.”
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18-20, 22-23, 25-27, 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu et al. (US 2023/0168367 A1) in view of Koubiadis et al. (US 2020/0166625 A1).
Regarding claim 18 (New), Rosu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by [1] has been struck-through]
A method for controlling a coherent cooperative radar sensor network which includes a plurality of radar sensors (Rosu et al. “it will be appreciated that additional radar distributed radar devices may be used for form a distributed or multi-static radar.” - ¶ [0028]), wherein at least two of the radar sensors operate coherently , the method comprising the following steps:
transmitting the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently to respectively different evaluation units (Rosu et al. coherent integration module 59A, non-coherent integration module 59B, Fig. 5), which then each carry out an individual evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5); and
combining the individual evaluations to form an overall evaluation (Rosu et al. threshold application module 59D, Fig. 5; “At step 185, the coherently integrated data (from step 182) is compared to the scaled threshold TCFAR (from step 184) to identify target detections.” - ¶ [0103]; Fig. 17).
Koubiadis et al. discloses:
partitioning sensor data of the radar sensors (Koubiadis et al. “Filtered pulses 512a-512c may be provided to coherent processing component 343 of detection processing chain A, where they are coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0045]; “Filtered pulses 514a-514c may be provided to non-coherent processing component 344 of detection processing chain B, where they are non-coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0046]) according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently (Koubiadis et al. “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” - ¶ [0007])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koubiadis et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. to yield the invention of claim 18 above. Both Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems that utilize both coherent and non-coherent integration. Rosu et al. discloses the limitations of claim 18 outlined above. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose partitioning sensor data of the radar sensors according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently. This feature is disclosed by Koubiadis et al. where “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0007]). The combination of Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 18
Koubiadis et al. discloses:
wherein the sensor data are partitioned according to distance ranges, Doppler/speed ranges and/or angular ranges of a radar signal being used and the data of the different ranges are transmitted to different evaluation units, which then each carry out an individual evaluation, and wherein the individual evaluations are combined to form an overall evaluation (Koubiadis et al. “Integration selectors 342 represent mechanisms by which coherent integration, performed by coherent processing component 343, and/or non-coherent integration performed by non-coherent processing component 344, are selected. Detection processing components 346 comprise detection processing thresholds/logic. Estimation components 348 determine reportable range extent and target range, angle and Doppler estimation through suitably configured thresholds and logic.” - ¶ [0038]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koubiadis et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. to yield the invention of claim 19 above. Both Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems that utilize both coherent and non-coherent integration. Rosu et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 18. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data are partitioned according to distance ranges, Doppler/speed ranges and/or angular ranges of a radar signal being used and the data of the different ranges are transmitted to different evaluation units, which then each carry out an individual evaluation, and wherein the individual evaluations are combined to form an overall evaluation. This feature is disclosed by Koubiadis et al. where “Integration selectors 342 represent mechanisms by which coherent integration, performed by coherent processing component 343, and/or non-coherent integration performed by non-coherent processing component 344, are selected. Detection processing components 346 comprise detection processing thresholds/logic. Estimation components 348 determine reportable range extent and target range, angle and Doppler estimation through suitably configured thresholds and logic.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0038]). The combination of Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 20 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 18, wherein the sensor data are transmitted to a data distribution unit (Rosu et al. radar controller processor 56, Fig. 5; “The radar controller processing unit 56 may, for example, be configured to… receive sensor signal…” - ¶ [0030]), (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5).
Koubiadis et al. discloses:
wherein the sensor data are transmitted to a data distribution unit, the sensor data are partitioned by the data distribution unit (Koubiadis et al. integration selector components 342, Fig. 3) and the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently are distributed by the data distribution unit to the evaluation units (Koubiadis et al. “Integration selectors 342 represent mechanisms by which coherent integration, performed by coherent processing component 343, and/or non-coherent integration performed by non-coherent processing component 344, are selected. - ¶ [0038]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koubiadis et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. to yield the invention of claim 20 above. Both Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems that utilize both coherent and non-coherent integration. Rosu et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 18. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose the sensor data are partitioned by the data distribution unit. This feature is disclosed by Koubiadis et al. where “Integration selectors 342 represent mechanisms by which coherent integration, performed by coherent processing component 343, and/or non-coherent integration performed by non-coherent processing component 344, are selected.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0038]). The combination of Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 22 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 18, wherein the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently are transmitted to a central computing device (Rosu et al. radar controller processor 56, Fig. 5; “The radar controller processing unit 56 may, for example, be configured to… receive sensor signal…” - ¶ [0030]) and evaluation units of the central computing device carry out the evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 18, wherein the sensor data are transmitted as raw data Rosu et al. radar controller processor 56, Fig. 5; “The radar controller processing unit 56 may, for example, be configured to… receive sensor signal…” - ¶ [0030]) or as Fourier-transformed data by the radar sensors.
Regarding claim 25 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 18, wherein the sensor data are preprocessed in the evaluation units (Rosu et al. coherent integration module 59A, non-coherent integration module 59B, Fig. 5; “In a first pre-processing module or step 182, coherent integration of all RDAs in the angular domain is performed on the 3D Range-Doppler-Angle signal.” - ¶ [0099]; “In a second pre-processing module or step 183, non-coherent integration is performed of all RDAS in the angular domain of the 3D Range-Doppler- Angle.” - ¶ [0100]).
Regarding claim 26 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 25, wherein the preprocessing of the sensor data includes a distance and Doppler evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5; where coherent and non-coherent integrations of the Range-Doppler Matrix are considered distance and Doppler evaluations) which is used to carry out an acquisition of targets (Rosu et al. threshold application module 59D, Fig. 5; “At step 185, the coherently integrated data (from step 182) is compared to the scaled threshold TCFAR (from step 184) to identify target detections.” - ¶ [0103]; Fig. 17) using an adapted evaluation with a constant false alarm rate (Rosu et al. “constant fase alarm rate (CFAR) detection refers to an adaptive algorithm used to detect target returns against a background of noise, clutter and interference.” - ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 27 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 26, wherein the overall evaluation includes a further evaluation with a lower constant false alarm rate for acquiring common targets (Rosu et al. threshold application module 59D, Fig. 5; “At step 185, the coherently integrated data (from step 182) is compared to the scaled threshold TCFAR (from step 184) to identify target detections.” - ¶ [0103]; Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 29 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 25, characterized in that the preprocessing of the sensor data includes a distance and Doppler evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5; where coherent and non-coherent integrations of the Range-Doppler Matrix are considered distance and Doppler evaluations) which is used to carry out an acquisition of targets and an angle estimation using a complete evaluation with a constant false alarm rate (Rosu et al. “In a first pre-processing module or step 182, coherent integration of all RDAs in the angular domain is performed on the 3D Range-Doppler-Angle signal. In selected embodiments, the coherent integration or combining step 182 may be implemented with an FFT accelerator which implements matched filtering in the spatial domain (among receive channels) and applies a global maximum function on the absolute values of the matching filter's output.” - ¶ [0099]), wherein the transmitted sensor data include a target list with phase information (Rosu et al. “To enable the use of existing CFAR algorithms to greatly increase the probability of detection, the CFAR detector 59 uses existing hardware resources (such as FFT accelerators and Square-Law or Log-Law detectors) to improve processing time and achieve higher angular resolution detection by pre-processing the RDM 58 to identify target detections that can be processed to estimate the direction of arrival, rather than processing the entire raw data of the RDM 59.” - ¶ [0036]; where the phase information is determined by the channel of the phased array).
Regarding claim 30 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 29, wherein the evaluation for at least one angle of a target estimated during the preprocessing includes a coherent cooperative angle estimation in a definable range around the at least one estimated angle with a higher angular resolution (Rosu et al. “To enable the use of existing CFAR algorithms to greatly increase the probability of detection, the CFAR detector 59 uses existing hardware resources (such as FFT accelerators and Square-Law or Log-Law detectors) to improve processing time and achieve higher angular resolution detection by pre-processing the RDM 58 to identify target detections that can be processed to estimate the direction of arrival, rather than processing the entire raw data of the RDM 59.” - ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 31 (New), Rosu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (Rosu et al. “the microcontroller 100 includes one or more control processor or central processing unit (CPU) subsystems 101, on-chip memory 102 (e.g., volatile or non-volatile memory)” - ¶ [0078]; Fig. 10) on which is stored a computer program (Rosu et al. “the control processor(s) may execute control code instructions” - ¶ [0079]) for controlling a coherent cooperative radar sensor network which includes a plurality of radar sensors (Rosu et al. “it will be appreciated that additional radar distributed radar devices may be used for form a distributed or multi-static radar.” - ¶ [0028]), wherein at least two of the radar sensors operate coherently, the computer program, when executed by a computer (Rosu et al. microcontroller 100, Fig. 10) causing the computer to perform the following steps:
transmitting the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently to respectively different evaluation units (Rosu et al. coherent integration module 59A, non-coherent integration module 59B, Fig. 5), which then each carry out an individual evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5); and
combining the individual evaluations to form an overall evaluation (Rosu et al. threshold application module 59D, Fig. 5; “At step 185, the coherently integrated data (from step 182) is compared to the scaled threshold TCFAR (from step 184) to identify target detections.” - ¶ [0103]; Fig. 17).
Koubiadis et al. discloses:
partitioning sensor data of the radar sensors (Koubiadis et al. “Filtered pulses 512a-512c may be provided to coherent processing component 343 of detection processing chain A, where they are coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0045]; “Filtered pulses 514a-514c may be provided to non-coherent processing component 344 of detection processing chain B, where they are non-coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0046]) according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently (Koubiadis et al. “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” - ¶ [0007]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koubiadis et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. to yield the invention of claim 31 above. Both Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems that utilize both coherent and non-coherent integration. Rosu et al. discloses the limitations of claim 18 outlined above. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose partitioning sensor data of the radar sensors according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently. This feature is disclosed by Koubiadis et al. where “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0007]). The combination of Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 32 (New), Rosu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
A coherent cooperative radar sensor network, comprising a plurality of radar sensors (Rosu et al. “it will be appreciated that additional radar distributed radar devices may be used for form a distributed or multi-static radar.” - ¶ [0028]), wherein at least two of the radar sensors operate coherently; and
a data distribution unit (Rosu et al. radar controller processor 56, Fig. 5; “The radar controller processing unit 56 may, for example, be configured to… receive sensor signal…” - ¶ [0030]);
wherein the radar network is configured to perform the following steps:
transmit the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently to respectively different evaluation units (Rosu et al. coherent integration module 59A, non-coherent integration module 59B, Fig. 5) , which then each carry out an individual evaluation (Rosu et al. “the CFAR detector 59 includes a first coherent integration module 59A in a first processing path which coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 in the spatial dimension (among receive channels) to improve target SNR before detection. In addition, the CFAR detector 59 includes a second non-coherent integration module 59B in a second, parallel processing path which non-coherently integrates or combines the RDM 58 by computing the average of the squared absolute values.” - ¶ [0036]; Fig. 5); and
combine the individual evaluations to form an overall evaluation (Rosu et al. threshold application module 59D, Fig. 5; “At step 185, the coherently integrated data (from step 182) is compared to the scaled threshold TCFAR (from step 184) to identify target detections.” - ¶ [0103]; Fig. 17).
Koubiadis et al. discloses:
partition sensor data of the radar sensors (Koubiadis et al. “Filtered pulses 512a-512c may be provided to coherent processing component 343 of detection processing chain A, where they are coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0045]; “Filtered pulses 514a-514c may be provided to non-coherent processing component 344 of detection processing chain B, where they are non-coherently integrated across receive intervals.” - ¶ [0046]) according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently (Koubiadis et al. “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” - ¶ [0007]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koubiadis et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. to yield the invention of claim 32 above. Both Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems that utilize both coherent and non-coherent integration. Rosu et al. discloses the limitations of claim 18 outlined above. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose partitioning sensor data of the radar sensors according to a type of evaluation into data to be evaluated coherently and data to be evaluated non-coherently. This feature is disclosed by Koubiadis et al. where “Coherent integration is performed on a set of the radar return signals, and non-coherent integration is performed on another set of the radar return signals.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0007]). The combination of Rosu et al. and Koubiadis et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 33 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
The coherent cooperative radar sensor network according to claim 32, further comprising a central computing device (Rosu et al. radar controller processor 56, Fig. 5) which is configured to perform the steps (Rosu et al. Fig. 17).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu et al. (US 2023/0168367 A1) in view of Koubiadis et al. (US 2020/0166625 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (US 2020/0333435 A1).
Regarding claim 21 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 18, wherein the data to be evaluated coherently and the data to be evaluated non-coherently are distributed to evaluation units (Rosu et al. coherent integration module 59A, non-coherent integration module 59B, Fig. 5; “In a first pre-processing module or step 182, coherent integration of all RDAs in the angular domain is performed on the 3D Range-Doppler-Angle signal.” - ¶ [0099]; “In a second pre-processing module or step 183, non-coherent integration is performed of all RDAS in the angular domain of the 3D Range-Doppler- Angle.” - ¶ [0100]).
Mayer et al. discloses:
evaluation units in the radar sensors and the evaluation units of the sensors carry out the evaluation (Mayer et al. evaluation unit 40 and preprocessing unit 50 are disposed in sensor head 100, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mayer et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 21 above. Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Mayer et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar systems that utilize a plurality of chanels. Rosu et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 18. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose evaluation units in the radar sensors and the evaluation units of the sensors carry out the evaluation. This feature is disclosed by Mayer et al. where evaluation unit 40 and preprocessing unit 50 are disposed in sensor head 100 (Mayer et al. Fig. 1). The combination of Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Mayer et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]) and “to provide a radar sensor head for a radar system, which may be scaled cost-effectively and flexibly with regard to the number of the elements used.” (Mayer et al. ¶ [0004]) and reduce the data rate to a downstream central control device (Mayer et al. ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 24 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 18
Mayer et al. discloses:
wherein the sensor data are preprocessed in the radar sensors (Mayer et al. evaluation unit 40 and preprocessing unit 50 are disposed in sensor head 100, Fig. 1; “Antenna controller 31 is functionally connected to an evaluation unit 40, received radar waves being converted into digital measuring data with the aid of an A/D converter situated in the evaluation unit 40 and subsequently being transformed in a first preprocessing step with the aid of a preprocessing unit 50.” - ¶ [0029]) and the sensor data are transmitted as preprocessed sensor data (Mayer et al. “As a result, a radar sensor head 100 is thus implemented, the main function of which represents the radar frontend with digitization of the received signal. After the analog-to-digital conversion, the processing may take place with the least possible effort, the data being transmitted at high bandwidth to central control device 120 and processed therein.” - ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mayer et al. into the invention of Rosu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 24 above. Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Mayer et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar systems that utilize a plurality of channels. Rosu et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 18. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data are preprocessed in the radar sensors and the sensor data are transmitted as preprocessed sensor data. This feature is disclosed by Mayer et al. where evaluation unit 40 and preprocessing unit 50 are disposed in sensor head 100 (Mayer et al. Fig. 1). The combination of Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Mayer et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]) and “to provide a radar sensor head for a radar system, which may be scaled cost-effectively and flexibly with regard to the number of the elements used.” (Mayer et al. ¶ [0004]) and reduce the data rate to a downstream central control device (Mayer et al. ¶ [0021]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosu et al. (US 2023/0168367 A1) in view of Koubiadis et al. (US 2020/0166625 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Srinivasan (NPL: “Distributed Radar Detection Theory” 1986).
Regarding claim 28 (New), Rosu et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Rosu et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to 26
Srinivasan discloses:
wherein targets acquired by only some of the radar sensors are evaluated only when a quality criterion is met (Srinivasan “The radar system employs a number of physically separated peripheral receivers and detectors and a central processor that provides a final decision by combining peripheral decisions rather than decision statistics.” – abstract; “The central processor combining rules we shall examine in the remainder of the paper are AND, OR and majority logic operations.” – p. 2, right-hand column, section 3. Optimum peripheral detector thresholds; where the majority logic determines that a target is detected when a majority of the radar sensors detect the target).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Srinivasan into the invention of Rosu et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 28 above. Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Srinivasan are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose disclose radar systems that utilize a plurality of channels. Rosu et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 26. However, Rosu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein targets acquired by only some of the radar sensors are evaluated only when a quality criterion is met. This feature is disclosed by Srinivasan where majority logic determines that a target is detected when a majority of the radar sensors detect the target (Srinivasan p. 3, left-hand column, section 3.3 Majority Logic Combining). The combination of Rosu et al., Koubiadis et al. and Srinivasan would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide optimal target detectability and coverage, while simultaneously mitigating clutter and electronic interference.” (Koubiadis et al. ¶ [0031]) and use “very low-bandwidth data links between the peripheral detectors and the central combiner or processor (Srinivas p. 1, laf-hand column, Introduction, first paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
15 JUN 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights