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 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 (line 2) recites “the different measurements”, which should recite “different measurements”.
Claim 23 (line 6) recites “the receive signals”, which should recite “the received signals”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), hereinafter Wu, in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), hereinafter Gulati.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses,
An integrated circuit, comprising
multiple stages; and (see Fig. 6, and paragraph [0103], “…FIG. 6 shows an illustrative process flow for a method 600 by which raw data corresponding to sampled return signals corresponding to reflections of transmitted signals that are reflected by one or more target objects in an environment around a MIMO radar system…”)
a control circuit configured to configure the use of one or more of the stages, wherein, at a given time, the integrated circuit is configured to use one or more of the stages in processing of received signals associated with measurements in an environment, and wherein: (see Fig. 1, elements 130-132, and further see paragraphs [0164]-[0165])
a first stage in the stages is configured to perform coherent interference mitigation by correcting the received signals for a predicted complex signal associated with a spurious source; (see Fig. 6, step 604, and further see paragraph [0105], “…At block 604, the signal processor 510 performs interference cancellation to remove interference components from the raw ADC data…”)
a third stage in the stages is configured to combine different received signals and detect one or more peaks in the received signals. (see Fig. 6, step 610, and further see paragraph [0109], “…At block 610, the signal processor 510 performs CFAR detection to determine the location of peaks (i.e., “detected peaks”)…”)
Wu does not disclose the limitation below. However, Gulati rectifies the deficiencies of
Wu by teaching,
a second stage in the stages is configured to perform equalization of the received signals based at least in part on a target criterion; (see Fig. 4, element 438, and further see col 7, lines 25-30, “…The equalization and resampling module 438 is configured to condition the outputs of the fast-time DFT module 436 in order to compensate for the effects of varying waveform parameters…” of Gulati)
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 Gulati into the
invention of Wu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as
they both disclose a radar system for suppressing the interference. Wu discloses in paragraph [0099], “…The signal processor 510 may be configured and arranged for signal processing tasks such as, but not limited to, target object identification, interference cancellation, computation of the distance or range to a target object, computation of the radial velocity of a target object, and computation of the AoA of signals reflected by a target object, and the like...”. Therefore, the signal processor in Wu could perform various tasks but Wu fails to explicitly disclose the equalization process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processor as disclosed by Wu by incorporating the equalization process as taught by
Gulati. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati would be obvious with a reasonable
expectation of success in order for the equalization process to coherently combine peaks with each other during signal processing (see col 7-lines 30-32 and col 10-lines 57-59 of Gulati).
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the different received signals correspond to different measurements in the measurements. (see paragraph [0104], “…These ADC samples may be output by the ADCs 530 as digital signals. These ADC samples represent received signals (sometimes referred to as “reflected signals” or “return signals”) corresponding to reflections of transmit signals (e.g., chirps) transmitted by the transmitter modules 518 via the transmit antenna elements 526, where the transmit signals are reflected off of one or more target objects in the environment of the radar system 500…”)
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the measurements comprise: lidar measurements, radar measurements, or both. (see paragraph [0099], “…In the radar system 500, the radar MCPU 504 may be connected and configured to supply input control signals to the radar device 502 and to receive therefrom digital output signals generated by the receiver modules 528…”)
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein correcting the received signals for the predicted complex signal is performed in a frequency domain. (see paragraph [0042], “…time-based radar signal reflections are converted into a frequency domain. Portions of those signals in which interference is strong are identified…”)
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Gulati further teaches,
wherein the equalization is performed in a frequency domain. (see Fig.4, element 436, and further see col 7, lines 27-30, “…The equalization and resampling module 438 is configured to condition the outputs of the fast-time DFT module 436…” of Gulati)
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 Gulati into the
invention of Wu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as
they both disclose a radar system for suppressing the interference. Wu discloses in paragraph [0099], “…The signal processor 510 may be configured and arranged for signal processing tasks such as, but not limited to, target object identification, interference cancellation, computation of the distance or range to a target object, computation of the radial velocity of a target object, and computation of the AoA of signals reflected by a target object, and the like...”. Therefore, the signal processor in Wu could perform various tasks but Wu fails to explicitly disclose the equalization process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processor as disclosed by Wu by incorporating the equalization process as taught by
Gulati. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati would be obvious with a reasonable
expectation of success in order for the equalization process to coherently combine peaks with each other during signal processing (see col 7-lines 30-32 and col 10-lines 57-59 of Gulati).
Regarding claim 12, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein an order of the stages in the integrated circuit is configurable. (see paragraph [0096], “…the radar device 502 may be embodied as a line-replaceable unit (LRU) or modular component that is designed to be replaced quickly at an operating location…” and “…the radar device 502 and the radar MCPU 504 formed with separate integrated circuits (chips) or with a single chip, depending on the application…”)
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the integrated circuit is configured to perform operations performed by the integrated circuit in hardware, software, or both. (see paragraph [0164], “…such circuits or circuitry may correspond to logic circuitry (which may refer to or include a code-programmed/configured CPU), in one example the logic circuitry may carry out a process or method (sometimes “algorithm”) by performing one or more of the various processing steps noted herein, such as may include converting reflections into the time-frequency domain, determining a suppression threshold…”)
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the stages in the integrated circuit are configured to operate independently of each other. (see Fig. 6, and paragraph [0103], “…FIG. 6 shows an illustrative process flow for a method 600 by which raw data corresponding to sampled return signals corresponding to reflections of transmitted signals that are reflected by one or more target objects in an environment around a MIMO radar system…”) Examiner’s Note: using BRI, “independently” is interpreted as separate processing steps.
Regarding claim 17, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the third stage is configured to detect the one or more peaks in the received signals using a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) estimation technique; and (see Fig. 6, step 610, and further see paragraph [0109], “…At block 610, the signal processor 510 performs CFAR detection to determine the location of peaks (i.e., “detected peaks”)…”)
Wu does not disclose the limitation below. However, Gulati rectifies the deficiencies of
Wu by teaching,
wherein the CFAR estimation technique comprises one or more of: determining a threshold corresponding to a noise level in a frequency domain; detecting the one or more peaks in the received signals based at least in part on a detection probability and a false-alarm rate; or estimating false alarms in the one or more peaks in the received signals. (see col 12, lines 32-36, “…the peak can be identified using a CFAR algorithm. The threshold for determining a peak can vary depending of the detection algorithm used. In a CFAR algorithm, the threshold is set according to a target false alarm probability. Ideally, the output of the second DFT comprises a separate peak for every real target, with no peaks corresponding to ghost targets. If there are multiple real targets, there may be multiple peaks in the output of the second DFT…” of Gulati)
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 Gulati into the
invention of Wu. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as
they both disclose a radar system for suppressing the interference. Wu discloses in paragraph [0109], “…the signal processor 510 performs CFAR detection to determine the location of peaks...”. Therefore, the signal processor in Wu performs CFAR detection but Wu fails to explicitly how threshold is set in CFAR. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processor as disclosed by Wu by incorporating the threshold as taught by Gulati. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the CFAR algorithm to minimize the detection of false peaks (see col 7-lines 58-59 of Gulati).
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein at least some of the operations in the multiple stages may be repeated for the different received signals; and (see paragraphs [0113]-[0114])
wherein the different received signals correspond to different electromagnetic transmit signals: in different channels or bands of frequencies, having different polarizations, or both. (see paragraph [0097], “…a respective transmit channel of a group of transmit channels designated herein as TX1, TX2, TX3, . . . TXi, where “i” is the total number of transmit (TX) channels…” and “…a respective receive channel of a group of receive channels designated herein as RX1, RX2, RX3, . . . RXj, where “j” is the number of receive (RX) channels…”)
Regarding claim 23,
Claim 23 is directed to a method.
Claim 23 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim
1 which is directed towards a product. Claim 23 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 24,
Claim 24 is directed to a system.
Claim 24 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim
1 which is directed towards a product. Claim 24 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Subburaj et al. (US 2020/0025871 A1), hereinafter Subburaj.
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 3.
However, Subburaj teaches,
wherein the predicted complex signal comprises a predicted magnitude and a predicted phase associated with the spurious source over multiple frames in the measurements. (see paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “…The complex ADC output is represented as: ADC I output+j*ADC Q output, where j is the square root of minus one. The ADC I output represents the real part and ADC Q output represents the imaginary part of the complex ADC output…” of Subburaj)
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 Subburaj into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking and detection with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the complex nature of the signal as taught by Subburaj. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Subburaj would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the object detection and reduce the noise level in the radar signal (see paragraphs [0003], [0032], [0094] of Subburaj).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 6.
However, Subburaj teaches,
wherein the spurious signal is associated with a reflection from a window or a housing. (see paragraph [0027], “…The chassis 206 optionally also refers to the protective housing or casing of the radar apparatus, which likewise typically reflects some of the transmitted signal directly (e.g., nearly directly) to the receiver…” of Subburaj)
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 Subburaj into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a radar apparatus for target tracking and detection with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the reflections from near-by objects (e.g., housing) as taught by Subburaj. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Subburaj would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the object detection and reduce the noise level in the radar signal (see paragraphs [0021], [0027] of Subburaj).
Claims 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Bruzzone et al. (US 12040921 B1), hereinafter Bruzzone.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 8.
However, Bruzzone teaches,
wherein the target criterion comprises: a constant average energy in a frequency domain; a constant moment of a distribution of a magnitude square amplitude in the frequency domain; or a boosting of the magnitude square amplitude at frequencies greater than a predefined value. (see Col 7 lines 12-38, “…use spatial selectivity to minimize the mean-squared error between its output waveform and the training waveform … the minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) criterion may simultaneously cancel and/or reduce interference, correct propagation impairments such as multipath distortion, and suppresses noise, while balancing these functions in a manner that maximizes and/or improves the beamformer output SINR…” of Bruzzone)
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 Bruzzone into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar/wireless network data processing techniques with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the MMSE equalization technique as taught by Bruzzone. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Bruzzone would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate channel distortions, noise, and interference while preserving signal integrity. (see col 7-lines 17-22 of Bruzzone).
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 9.
However, Bruzzone teaches,
wherein the target criterion is based at least in part on a performance metric associated with peak detection. (see Col 8 lines 45-67, “…A preferred detection statistic for present purposes is to compute the normalized mean-squared error (NMSE) …” of Bruzzone)
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 Bruzzone into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar/wireless network data processing techniques with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the MMSE equalization technique as taught by Bruzzone. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Bruzzone would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate channel distortions, noise, and interference while preserving signal integrity. (see col 7-lines 17-22 of Bruzzone).
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 10.
However, Bruzzone teaches,
wherein the target criterion is that a noise profile associated with the received signals has a predefined or predetermined shape when the received signals correspond to an absence of returned signals during the measurements. (see Col 17 lines 46 – Col 18 lines 16, “…the SMF 216 operates on the whitened data streams as input (e.g., as a whitened matrix as described with respect to SMF 416, 418 of FIG. 4). The SMF 216 generates from each such whitened stream a matched-filter data stream, where the matched filter employs the PSS ID/waveform currently under test, tuned in frequency to the current CCF under test…” of Bruzzone)
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 Bruzzone into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar/wireless network data processing techniques with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the MMSE equalization technique as taught by Bruzzone. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Bruzzone would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate channel distortions, noise, and interference while preserving signal integrity. (see col 7-lines 17-22 of Bruzzone).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0132185 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 11.
However, Lin teaches,
wherein the received signals correspond to optical signals having carrier frequencies that vary as a function of time using a predefined function. (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0052], “…the transmitted chirp signal 180 starts at the carrier frequency F.sub.c and increases by ΔF over a time T.sub.ramp, and that chirp signal may be reflected by an object and be received as a reflected signal 182 delayed by a time, τ, being the time of flight…” of Lin)
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 Lin into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the interference suppression technique as taught by Lin. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Lin would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate the adverse effect of radar-to-radar interference and improve object detection. (see paragraphs [0003]-[0008] of Lin).
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 13.
However, Lin teaches,
wherein the integrated circuit comprises a transformation circuit configured to perform a Fourier Transform of the received signals before the multiple stages. (see paragraph [0060], “…At 608 a first FFT is applied to each received chirp to convert the time signal into the frequency domain…” of Lin)
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 Lin into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on mitigating interference and noise signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the interference suppression technique as taught by Lin. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Lin would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate the adverse effect of radar-to-radar interference and improve object detection. (see paragraphs [0003]-[0008] of Lin).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Cochrane et al. (“An FPGA-Based Signal Processor for FMCW Doppler Radar and Spectroscopy”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 58, NO. 8, AUGUST 2020), hereinafter Cochrane.
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1.
Wu further discloses,
wherein the different measurements use electromagnetic transmit signals: in different channels or bands of frequencies, having different polarizations, or both. (see paragraph [0097], “…a respective transmit channel of a group of transmit channels designated herein as TX1, TX2, TX3, . . . TXi, where “i” is the total number of transmit (TX) channels…” and “…a respective receive channel of a group of receive channels designated herein as RX1, RX2, RX3, . . . RXj, where “j” is the number of receive (RX) channels…”)
Wu in view of Gulati does not disclose the limitation below. However, Cochrane rectifies the deficiencies of Wu in view of Gulati by teaching,
wherein the third stage is configured to combine a magnitude square of the different measurements in a frequency domain; and (see page 5, section V, 2nd paragraph “…the 2-D FFT results are magnitude-squared and then averaged for 64 frames…” of Cochrane)
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 Cochrane into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on improving object characterization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the FPGA-based signal processing technique as taught by Cochrane. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Cochrane would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement computing efficiency in range-Doppler processing. (see page 1-Abstract and Introduction of Cochrane).
Claims 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Roger et al. (US 2019/0146058 A1), hereinafter Roger.
Regarding claim 18, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 18.
However, Roger teaches,
wherein the third stage is configured to detect the one or more peaks in the received signals based on a fixed comparison threshold. (see paragraphs [0007], [0037], [0045], “…CFAR may be used as one approach to select FFT peaks, e.g., by comparing such peaks with predefined thresholds…” of Roger)
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 Roger into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on improving object characterization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the CFAR peak detection technique as taught by Roger. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Roger would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect objects in presence of background noise and interference. (see paragraphs [0006]-[0007] of Roger).
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 19.
However, Roger teaches,
wherein the one or more peaks are detected: using a local maximum detector; based at least in part on a number of the one or more peaks; or based at least in part on a comparison with a threshold determined using a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) estimation technique. (see paragraphs [0007], [0037], [0045], “…CFAR may be used as one approach to select FFT peaks, e.g., by comparing such peaks with predefined thresholds…” of Roger)
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 Roger into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on improving object characterization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the CFAR peak detection technique as taught by Roger. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Roger would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect objects in presence of background noise and interference. (see paragraphs [0006]-[0007] of Roger).
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 20.
However, Roger teaches,
wherein the third stage is configured to block detection of a set of blocked out peaks in the received signals. (see paragraph [0043], “…. This allows considering only FFT results that are below a threshold (i.e. to mask unwanted peaks)…” of Roger)
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 Roger into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar data processing techniques with focus on improving object characterization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating the CFAR peak detection technique as taught by Roger. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Roger would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect objects in presence of background noise and interference. (see paragraphs [0006]-[0007] of Roger).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0393236 A1), in view of Gulati et al. (US 10855328 B1), and further in view of Rai et al. (“LTE-based passive radars and applications: a review”, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 42:19, 7489-7518, August 2021), hereinafter Rai.
Regarding claim 22, Wu in view of Gulati, as shown above, teaches claim 1. Wu in view of
Gulati does not teach the limitation of claim 22.
However, Rai teaches,
wherein the third stage is configured to reverse an equalization correction performed by the second stage. (see section 5.1, 2nd paragraph, “…Once channel equalization is done, the whole procedure is then carried out in the reverse direction to get a good reference signal…” of Rai)
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 Rai into the invention of Wu in view of Gulati. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose applications in radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal processing approach as disclosed by Wu in view of Gulati by incorporating radar processing related to the recovery of reference signal as taught by Rai. The combination of Wu in view of Gulati and Rai would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect/track objects and reduce false detections. (see section 5.1 and Figure 9 of Rai).
Conclusion
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