DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method for filtering and removing false targets caused by sidelobes in pulse compression for the polyphase P3-coded waveform must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant is claiming “A method for filtering and removing false targets caused by sidelobes in pulse compression for the polyphase P3-coded waveform”; however, there are no steps claimed which makes the claim indefinite.
Still regarding claim 1, it recites the limitation “the position of the sidelobe” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, since “the sidelobes appear symmetrically on both sides of the main lobe” as claimed, it is unclear of whether there is only one position of the sidelobe with a highest power or there is a position of the sidelobe with a highest power on either side of the main lobe which results in two positions of the sidelobes with the highest powers (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 2, the claim is not a proper “step” claim (i.e. with ‘-ing’ ending such as obtaining, calculating, etc.). In addition, there is no step claimed in “Step 2”.
Still regarding claim 2, it is unclear of how and what manner “a window on both sides (left and right) of the range bin being considered” is determined.
In addition still regarding claim 2, Step 4, the claimed limitation of “if the power is greater than the threshold: this may be identified as the position of the main lobe of the target, continue to calculate and compare with the target detection threshold to determine a final output…” is vague. Does Applicant mean the target classification threshold instead of the target detection threshold? If not, then the target detection threshold lacks antecedent basis. Further, if the power is already compare to the threshold and found to be greater, it is unclear of what else is required to continue to calculate and compare with the threshold to determine a final output as claimed.
Further, what is meant and encompasses “a target” or “targets” is unclear and not readily understood. The claimed invention is merely determining the power at the range bin, comparing such power to a threshold for determining whether the power of the range bin is a sidelobe power and its position or may be a main lobe and its position. As well known in radar art, signal(s) is transmitted from a radar and a reflected signal is received for determining a target(s); however, none of this is claiming to clearly set forth what the scope of “a target” or “targets” encompasses.
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Much of the language of the claims is simply a list of desired results using unclear language and do little to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of any inventive subject matter. While the Office has noted numerous instances of these issues above, the claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of the Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above. Moreover, due to the lack of understanding of the scope of the claims, it is not possible to formulate either a search nor examine the claims on the basis of the prior art.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0326920 discloses a method for processing return radar waveforms in response to transmitted radar waveforms. The method includes receiving, with a processor, a return radar waveform having a Doppler shift larger than Doppler tolerance. The method also includes separating, with the processor, the return radar waveform into a plurality of shortened waveforms. The method also includes compressing, with the processor, each of the plurality of shortened waveforms with a shortened form of the return radar waveform. The method also includes summing, with the processor, the plurality of compressed, shortened waveforms by computing a Doppler Fourier transform for each radar range bin of the return radar waveform using the plurality of compressed, shortened waveforms.
US 7,250,900 discloses a radar system and method for detecting targets using pulse-compressed signals. In one application, the systems and methods can be used to detect one or more relatively small targets whose pulse-compressed signals are masked by the time-sidelobes of a larger target's return signal. The method includes an iterative, detect-and-subtract signal algorithm that processes the post-compressed signal to detect multiple targets. Specifically the processing algorithm operates on the post-compressed signal to identify a point spread function (PSF) that corresponds to the relatively large target. Once identified, the PSF corresponding to the largest target in the post-compressed signal is subtracted from the post-compressed signal to generate a residual signal. This residual signal, in turn, includes the PSFs for the other targets. This process of identifying and subtracting the PSF of the largest target in the residual signal is then repeated until all targets are detected.
CN 116338661 discloses a sub-band peak energy detection side lobe false target eliminating method, relating to underwater acoustic array signal processing field, fully using the space consistency difference of target and side lobe in sub-band processing, on the basis of sub-band peak value detection, through image expansion corrosion, eliminating the sub-band peak bifurcation caused by the target azimuth disturbance, and sending the main side lobe amplitude ratio threshold from the distribution function, combining the multi-threshold judgment to realize side lobe false target elimination. The invention overcomes the high false alarm processed by the traditional postpositive sub-band, combined with the self-adaptive processing, under the condition of not reducing the detection performance, the high resolution performance is not less than 30 %, with engineering application value.
RU 2630161 discloses sidelobe suppressing device for pulse compression of multiphase N-length codes comprises the first digital filter with finite impulse response (FIR) of the order of N-1, a digital correction signal generator consisting of a series-connected code converter into a complex conjugate code, and the second digital filter with the FIR order of N+1, an adder, a delay line for the duration of one code element, a subtractor, a delay line for the duration of two code elements.
CN 103364764 discloses an airborne radar non-stationary clutter suppression method, which comprises the following steps: firstly taking out echo data which is received by radar, is subjected to pulse compression, and belongs to a distance unit to be detected; estimating a space-time two-dimensional power spectrum by utilizing an iteration self-adaptive spectrum; reconstructing a covariance matrix by utilizing the space-time two-dimensional power spectrum, and revising the reconstructed covariance matrix; and finally calculating filtering weight by utilizing the revised covariance matrix, and carrying out clutter suppression in real time. The invention does not need sample selection, effectively avoiding the sample pollution and problem of insufficient sample number; the invention reconfigurable clutter sub space when considering the entire space-time plane, so it is more accurate, better clutter inhibition performance. The invention does not need sub aperture smoothly. so there is no space-time problem of aperture loss, and not limited by the antenna structure, target eliminating method of the invention only the desired target position notches formed on the space-time plane, it can reduce additional clutter inhibition performance loss for airborne radar non-stationary clutter suppression.
JP H09257920 discloses an invention of reducing unnecessary side lobe appearing before and after compressed pulse in pules compression with encoding used for transmission of radar, sonar, etc. In pulse compression by encoding, when its sub pulse width is τ, conventional pulse compression codes are all to compress to one sub pulse width without limitation to phase change. Against this, in this case, code phase is rotated in the same direction so that a frequency spectral band width is concentrated in a zone with the width narrower than ±1/τ, and the resulting compression pulse is compressed to a plurality of the sub pulse widths. In this method, as the result of selection of a code system with smaller side lobe ratio, the side lobe ratio can be made smaller than the that of the above conventional method under the same compression ratio. Also, the band width of the compression pulse which was widened due to compression to the plurality of sub pulse widths becomes narrower than ±1/τ, but by setting the original sub pulse width smaller allowing for this band width expansion, the compression pulse width can be further reduced.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights