DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language are in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The following abbreviations used throughout the claims are undefined:
LPRF, HPRF, FFT, CZT, IFFT, PDI and CPI
Examiner recommends defining the abbreviations before their usage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin).
Regarding claim 1, Schutte teaches A radar apparatus comprising (Title “Apparatus For Combining Data Produced From Multiple Radars Illuminating A Common Target Area”):
an LPRF-Radar to emit an LPRF radio wave toward atmosphere and receive a reflection wave reflected by a target (8:65-67 “lower PRF lower frequency radar”; claim 14 “each radar produces in-phase and quadrature reflection signals from said target.”); and
an HPRF-Radar to emit an HPRF radio wave toward atmosphere and receive the reflection wave reflected by the target (8:65-68 “unfolding the respective velocity range bins obtained from the higher PRF higher frequency radars to obtain a corresponding number of compressed velocity range bins produced by said lower PRF lower frequency radar”; claim 14 “each radar produces in-phase and quadrature reflection signals from said target.”),
wherein the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar each include a signal processor (fig 2)
the radar apparatus further comprising a target detection processor to detect a position and a velocity of the target on a basis of information transmitted from the signal processor included in the LPRF-Radar and information transmitted from the signal processor included in the HPRF-Radar (claim 8 “means for combining said unfolded velocity range bins with corresponding compressed velocity range bins from said lower PRF radar”), and
wherein, the signal processor included in each of the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar includes, a range-velocity map generator to generate a range-velocity map (claim 7 “velocity range bins and said corresponding velocity range bins from said first and second means for unfolding to compensate for variations in gain between each of said radars.”);
an interpolation processor to interpolate and correct a range bin and a Doppler bin in the range-velocity map in consideration of information obtained by the LPRF system and information obtained by the HPRF system (claim 10 “wherein said means for compressing the velocity range bins comprises a filter having a zero fill discrete Fourier transform function”; para 5 “The range bin walk problem can be appropriately corrected by using larger range bins, thus increasing the probability that a target will remain within the range bin during the coherent integration period and not occur at or near a boundary.”);
an integration processor to perform integration processing (claim 1 “means for combining said first group of velocity range bins with corresponding velocity range bins from said first and second means for unfolding, whereby a single group of velocity range cells are provided.”); and
a comparison processor to compare a component of a signal processed by the integration processor with a preset threshold value (para 29 “Following the combination of each of the signals into a composite I and Q signal, the remaining steps of calculating signal levels from the I and Q data in device 38 and then detecting in device 39 the magnitude of the signal with respect to threshold detection can occur. As is shown in FIG. 5, the unfolding process may create numerous spurious or artificial detections in the higher frequency radars representing signal content produced by the target at a lower frequency/velocity. By use of the tagging circuit of device 40, the lower order artifacts may be determined to be below a given threshold, and to be ignored, leaving only the artifact at the velocity of interest, 210 knots, for processing”).
Schutte does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Beilin teaches
wherein the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar each include a signal processor including an LPRF system and an HPRF system (para 8 “The concept of ambiguity resolution in range is presented in FIG. 1, showing the signals received when three pulse sequences shown respectively as PRF1, PRF2 and PRF3 are transmitted, each having a different PRF.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Beilin with the teachings of Schutte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Beilin para 4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Beilin merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both Schutte and Beilin disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tansek (US 20220011402).
Regarding claim 2, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1, (fig 2).
Schutte does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Beilin teaches
wherein the LPRF-Radar further includes: an LPRF radar transmission system including an LPRF transmitter and an LPRF transmission antenna (para 8 “The concept of ambiguity resolution in range is presented in FIG. 1, showing the signals received when three pulse sequences shown respectively as PRF1, PRF2 and PRF3 are transmitted, each having a different PRF.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Beilin with the teachings of Schutte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Beilin para 4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Beilin merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both Schutte and Beilin disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tansek teaches a reception system including a band pass filter that includes bandpass filters for a band of an LPRF pulse and a band of an HPRF pulse (0057 “Each bandpass filter 9 only passes the pulses that are in the frequency band that is defined by the Frequency Band Selector 14 input. The bandpass filter bank 9 output feeds the I/F amplifiers bank 10. The I/F amplifiers 10 boost the signal level and adjust the signal gain based on the amount of signal lost traversing the medium to the target and back again.”; 0048 “Referring to FIGS. 1-7 in general, in a non-limiting exemplary embodiment(s), the system overcomes the shortcomings listed hereinabove. The technique is to tag each radar pulse 5 with a modulation that is easily separated from prior and future pulses. The uniquely tagged pulses will thus emulate radar system(s) 50 running at a very low PRF. The aggregated signal processing yields a very high resolution, high PRF, long range radar system 50. Since the PRF can be high, the volume scan rate can also be high.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tansek with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Tansek Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tansek merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Tansek disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the HPRF-Radar further includes: an HPRF radar transmission system including an HPRF transmitter and an HPRF transmission antenna (para 22 “higher frequency radar which is operating at the higher PRF”); and a reception system (fig 7) (fig 7).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tansek teaches using bandpass filters in systems using PRFs (0057 “Each bandpass filter 9 only passes the pulses that are in the frequency band that is defined by the Frequency Band Selector 14 input. The bandpass filter bank 9 output feeds the I/F amplifiers bank 10. The I/F amplifiers 10 boost the signal level and adjust the signal gain based on the amount of signal lost traversing the medium to the target and back again.”; 0048 “Referring to FIGS. 1-7 in general, in a non-limiting exemplary embodiment(s), the system overcomes the shortcomings listed hereinabove. The technique is to tag each radar pulse 5 with a modulation that is easily separated from prior and future pulses. The uniquely tagged pulses will thus emulate radar system(s) 50 running at a very low PRF. The aggregated signal processing yields a very high resolution, high PRF, long range radar system 50. Since the PRF can be high, the volume scan rate can also be high.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tansek with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Tansek Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tansek merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Tansek disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1, (para 29 “Following the combination of each of the signals into a composite I and Q signal, the remaining steps of calculating signal levels from the I and Q data in device 38 and then detecting in device 39 the magnitude of the signal with respect to threshold detection”)
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tansek teaches
wherein the integration processor includes a filter bank that includes a plurality of bandpass filters, and the target detection processor performs target detection processing on a signal component that has passed through each of the bandpass filters (0057 “Each bandpass filter 9 only passes the pulses that are in the frequency band that is defined by the Frequency Band Selector 14 input. The bandpass filter bank 9 output feeds the I/F amplifiers bank 10. The I/F amplifiers 10 boost the signal level and adjust the signal gain based on the amount of signal lost traversing the medium to the target and back again.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tansek with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Tansek Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tansek merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Tansek disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin), and further in view of Li et al. (CN 101464511 hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Schutte teaches A radar apparatus comprising (Title “Apparatus For Combining Data Produced From Multiple Radars Illuminating A Common Target Area”):
an LPRF-Radar to emit an LPRF radio wave toward atmosphere and receive a reflection wave reflected by a target (8:65-67 “lower PRF lower frequency radar”; claim 14 “each radar produces in-phase and quadrature reflection signals from said target.”); and
an HPRF-Radar to emit an HPRF radio wave toward atmosphere and receive the reflection wave reflected by the target (8:65-68 “unfolding the respective velocity range bins obtained from the higher PRF higher frequency radars to obtain a corresponding number of compressed velocity range bins produced by said lower PRF lower frequency radar”; claim 14 “each radar produces in-phase and quadrature reflection signals from said target.”),
wherein the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar each include a signal processor (fig 2)
the radar apparatus further comprising a target detection processor to detect a position and a velocity of the target on a basis of information transmitted from the signal processor included in the LPRF-Radar and information transmitted from the signal processor included in the HPRF-Radar (claim 8 “means for combining said unfolded velocity range bins with corresponding compressed velocity range bins from said lower PRF radar”),
checks in which record a certain identical target among the targets appears in each of the structures (para 4 “Thus, each radar may show the same target in an adjacent range bin”), and
Schutte does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Beilin teaches
wherein the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar each include a signal processor including an LPRF system and an HPRF system (para 8 “The concept of ambiguity resolution in range is presented in FIG. 1, showing the signals received when three pulse sequences shown respectively as PRF1, PRF2 and PRF3 are transmitted, each having a different PRF.”)
the target detection processor compares information about a structure transmitted from the signal processor in the LPRF-Radar with information about a structure transmitted from the signal processor in the HPRF-Radar (para 13 “The detection unit 100 calculates the absolute value of each cell of the resulting map and compares the resulting absolute values to respective thresholds to provide target detection decision.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Beilin with the teachings of Schutte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Beilin para 4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Beilin merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both Schutte and Beilin disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Li teaches
performs processing in such a way as to be able to also output a result detected by only one of the LPRF-Radar and the HPRF-Radar as a detection result (Abstract “according to the pulse repetitive frequency set is determined on this basis, so as to judge the working wave position of the radar antenna and to check the judgment result. the invention only needs one receiver device can finish the task without using traditional multi-receiver mode of multiple receivers, saves manpower and material resources”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve resource optimization (Li Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Li disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the target detection processor sets a signal near a position where ambiguity is occurred to be within a range of the ambiguity of the target signal related to the target (para 29 “in FIG. 5, the unfolding process may create numerous spurious or artificial detections in the higher frequency radars representing signal content produced by the target at a lower frequency/velocity”), wherein, the occurrence of ambiguity refers to the occurrence of velocity ambiguity, distance ambiguity, or both (para 29 “in FIG. 5, the unfolding process may create numerous spurious or artificial detections in the higher frequency radars representing signal content produced by the target at a lower frequency/velocity”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (US PAT 7742620 hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chen teaches
wherein the integration processing performed by the integration processor is post detection integration (para 3 “FIGS. 2a-2d are graphs depicting the performance of pre-detection and post-detection integration;”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chen with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Chen Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Chen disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20190064336 hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Wei et al. (CN 102890272 hereinafter Wei).
Regarding claim 6, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches
wherein the signal processor includes: a pulse hit direction processor (0018 “pulse compressions which are determined on a basis of the carrier frequencies and beam directional angles indicating propagation directions of the transmission pulses”) to correct phase rotation of a signal due to a Doppler frequency using a set of velocities of the target assumed in advance and then perform coherent integration in a pulse hit direction (0105 “Care must be taken in mathematical formula (17) that phase rotation in a hit direction is expressed as exp(j2π(Δf.sub.n+f.sub.d)h′T.sub.PRI). This is due to frequency conversion of the target signal in the RF band by the reference carrier frequency f.sub.0.sup.(RF).”; 0087 “In the expression (4), T.sub.PRI represents the pulse repetition interval PRI, and f.sub.d represents a Doppler frequency of a target signal at a radial velocity v.sub.0. In order to simplify explanation, an amplitude due to distance attenuation or other causes is omitted here.”);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system processing (Takahashi Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Takahashi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Takahashi disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wei teaches
a pulse compressor to correct a frequency shift in a power spectrum of a target signal due to Doppler and perform pulse compression (p.12 “a periodic figure the power spectrum estimation, the deviation, Doppler frequency shift of a signal power will be underestimate, and estimated echo signal power, to a power spectrum density distribution data after FFT processing, a formula is as follows”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wei with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Wei Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wei merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Wei disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kageme et al. (JP 6279187 hereinafter Kageme).
Regarding claim 7, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kageme teaches
wherein the signal processor includes: a reception pulse FFT to perform FFT in a distance direction (p.8 “In FIG. 15, a processing block 1501-1 is a pulse compression and processing block 1501- for a signal Fczt (1, n .sub.Rx , h .sub.czt , m) based on the speed and distance of the transmitting radar 100-1 and the receiving radar 200-n .sub.Rx. N .sub.Tx represents pulse compression for a signal Fczt”); a pulse direction CZT to perform chirp z-transform in a pulse hit direction (p.8 “In FIG. 15, a processing block 1501-1 is a pulse compression and processing block 1501- for a signal Fczt (1, n .sub.Rx , h .sub.czt , m) based on the speed and distance of the transmitting radar 100-1 and the receiving radar 200-n .sub.Rx. N .sub.Tx represents pulse compression for a signal Fczt”); a reference pulse generator to generate a reference pulse used for pulse compression processing; a reference pulse FFT to perform FFT on the reference pulse (p.8 “in order to separate the reception signal for each transmission radar, the reference signal based on the modulation component for each transmission radar and the reception signal are correlated, that is, pulse compression is performed.”); a multiplier to multiply a signal from the pulse direction CZT by a signal from the reference pulse FFT (p.7 “Chirp z-transform (CZT: Chirp Z-Transform) is used to convert to the frequency domain while changing the Doppler frequency interval for each different transmission frequency so that the speed bins are the same.”); and an IFFT processor to perform inverse Fourier transform (“The frequency domain transform unit 231-1 converts the CZT represented by the equation (16) into a frequency domain using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) and an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT: Inverse FFT) represented by the equation (21).”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kageme with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection performance (Kageme p.4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kageme merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Kageme disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutte et al. (US PAT 5302955 hereinafter Schutte) in view of Beilin et al. (US PAT 7864106 hereinafter Beilin) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hara (US 20020018517).
Regarding claim 9, Schutte teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the integration processor includes: (para 30 “Devices 42, 43 and 44 process I and Q data in the same manner as device 38. A simple scaler addition is applied in step 45 before going ahead and forming the same threshold calculation with circuit 38 and threshold detection in step 39.”; claim 9 “means for weighting each signal received by said combining means”);
Schutte does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Beilin teaches
a CPI direction PDI to perform incoherent integration in a CPI direction (para 7 “The detection process in each sub-interval, known also as "Coherent Processing Interval" and for short CPI, can be performed optimally by using coherent integration”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Beilin with the teachings of Schutte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Beilin para 4). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Beilin merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular radar system. Since both Schutte and Beilin disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hara teaches
a correlation matrix generator to generate a correlation matrix of signals transmitted on a CPI basis; a weight calculator to output an eigenvector corresponding to a maximum eigenvalue of the correlation matrix as a weight (claim 7 “calculating a correlation matrix from said reception signals; eigen-analyzing said correlation matrix to obtain eigenvalues {.lambda..sub.j.vertline.j=1, 2, . . . , M} and eigenvectors {e.sub.j.vertline.j=1, 2, . . . , M}, where M is a number of antennas”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hara with the teachings of Schutte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency (Hara title). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hara merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate features of the particular RF processing system. Since both the cited prior art and Hara disclose similar RF systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
YOON et al. (US 20240019538) discloses “The present disclosure relates to a radar system including a pulse Doppler radar. A method of removing clutter according to the present disclosure includes obtaining chirp rate information on a chirp rate applied to a transmission signal of the pulse Doppler radar, determining a reference Doppler frequency for removing a clutter signal by considering the chirp rate information (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights