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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of TW113135956 filed 09/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “an optimal sparse matrix” in lines 1-2 of claim 2. It is not understood if “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 2 same or different than “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 2 recites “a smallest matrix norm” in line 2 of claim 2. It is not understood if “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 2 is same or different than “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 3 recites “an optimal sparse matrix” in lines 1-2 of claim 3. It is not understood if “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 3 same or different than “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 1 or “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 2. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 3 recites “a smallest matrix norm” in line 2 of claim 3. It is not understood if “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 3 is same or different than “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 1 or “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 2. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 4 recites “an optimal sparse matrix” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. It is not understood if “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 4 same or different than “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 1 or “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 2 or “an optimal sparse matrix” of claim 3. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 4 recites “a smallest matrix norm” in line 2 of claim 4. It is not understood if “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 4 is same or different than “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 1 or “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 2 or “a smallest matrix norm” of claim 4. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore is also rejected.
Claim 6 recites “a kth residual” in line 1 of claim 1. It is not understood if “a kth residual” of claim 6 same or different that “a kth residual” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 7 recites “a most relevant atom” in line 1 of claim 7. It is not understood if “a most relevant atom” of claim 7 same or different than “a most relevant atom” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A method for reducing computational complexity in determining direction of arrival (DoA) for a radar system, the method to be implemented by the radar system, the radar system including a plurality of antennas that are configured to receive a plurality of reflection signals reflected from a target object, and a signal processor that is configured to estimate a plurality of DoAs corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals received by the plurality of antennas, the method comprising:
establishing a signal matrix based on the plurality of reflection signals using a compressed sensing technique, and defining an initial row selection matrix and an initial column selection matrix based on the signal matrix, where the signal matrix includes a plurality of atoms;
setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one,
wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix,
obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix,
obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and
obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time; and
after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step aThe claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of establishing a signal matrix based on the plurality of reflection signals using a compressed sensing technique, and defining an initial row selection matrix and an initial column selection matrix based on the signal matrix, where the signal matrix includes a plurality of atoms; setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one, wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix, obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix, obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time; and after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a radar system is transmitting and receiving reflected signals from an object, using a plurality of antennas and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a direction of arrival of signals.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of the radar system including a plurality of antennas that are configured to receive a plurality of reflection signals reflected from a target object, and a signal processor that is configured to estimate a plurality of DoAs corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals received by the plurality of antennas.
The receiving reflected signals are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “the radar system including a plurality of antennas” and “signal processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the radar is all conventional sensor mounted on a vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the signal processor is anything other than a conventional computer or computing processor within the radar system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8. A radar system, comprising:
a plurality of antennas configured to receive a plurality of reflection signals reflected from a target object; and
a signal processor configured to estimate a plurality of directions of arrival (DoAs) corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals received by the plurality of antennas by,
establishing a signal matrix based on the plurality of reflection signals using a compressed sensing technique, and defining an initial row selection matrix and an initial column selection matrix based on the signal matrix, where the signal matrix includes a plurality of atoms,
setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one,
wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix,
obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix, obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and
obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time, and
after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites apparatus including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of estimate a plurality of directions of arrival (DoAs) corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals; establishing a signal matrix based on the plurality of reflection signals using a compressed sensing technique, and defining an initial row selection matrix and an initial column selection matrix based on the signal matrix, where the signal matrix includes a plurality of atoms, setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one, wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix, obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix, obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time, and after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting a plurality of antennas configured to receive a plurality of reflection signals reflected from a target object; a signal processor configured to estimate a plurality of directions of arrival (DoAs) corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals received by the plurality of antennas by,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “a signal processor configured to estimate,” the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a radar system is transmitting and receiving reflected signals from an object, using a plurality of antennas and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a direction of arrival of signals. The mere nominal recitation of “a signal processor configured to estimate” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a plurality of antennas configured to receive a plurality of reflection signals reflected from a target object; a signal processor configured to estimate a plurality of directions of arrival (DoAs) corresponding respectively to the plurality of reflection signals received by the plurality of antennas.
The receiving reflected signals is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a plurality of antennas…a signal processor configured to estimate…the plurality of reflected signals received by the plurality antennas” of the radar system merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose radar components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the radar is all conventional sensor mounted on a vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the signal processor is anything other than a conventional computer or computing processor within the radar system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed if corresponding 101 rejections and 112(b) rejections are overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one, wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix, obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix, obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time; and after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.”
Claim 8 is allowed if corresponding 101 rejections are overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“setting each of the initial row selection matrix and the initial column selection matrix to be an empty set, and setting an initial residual to be the signal matrix, and performing recursive computation for a number K of times, wherein an index k is initialized at zero, and for each of the number K of times of the recursive computation, before the recursive computation is performed, the index k is incremented by one, wherein for a kth time the recursive computation is performed, the recursive computation includes selecting a most relevant atom, which has a greatest inner product with a (k-1)th residual, from among the plurality of atoms of the signal matrix, obtaining a kth row selection matrix and a kth column selection matrix for the most relevant atom by expanding a (k-1)th row selection matrix and a (k-1)th column selection matrix, obtaining an optimal sparse matrix that has a smallest matrix norm with the signal matrix by calculating an equivalent least squares using a recursive inversion technique, and obtaining a kth residual based on the optimal sparse matrix, and in response to the index k being less than the number K, performing the recursive computation for a next time, and after performing the recursive computation for the Kth time, outputting a Kth row selection matrix and a Kth column selection matrix so as to obtain the plurality of DoAs through phase compensation, wherein the number K is a positive integer.”
Closest Prior arts found to be:
Chen et al. (CN113655444 A) [English Translation] describes a MIMO radar DOA estimation method based on weight-weighted priori under array element failure, using SVD decomposition technology to perform dimensionality reduction preprocessing to the virtual array output data matrix, enhancing the robustness of the noise…aiming at the output data matrix of the whole line deletion element after dimensionality reduction, establishing matrix filling model of combined weight-weighted low rank and sparse prior information; using the augmented Lagrangian method under the alternating direction multiplier method frame…iteration to obtain the optimal solution, updating and adjusting the weight in each iteration to enhance the low rank type and sparsity of the solution, and performing contraction processing to the over-complete dictionary to further reduce the calculation complexity…when the algorithm converges, the target DOA can be estimated by the sparse solution (page 3 second paragraph).
Ravish (US 2025/0208282 A1) describes FMCW radar systems, such as automotive radar system 100, are used to estimate the distance and relative velocity of objects in the vicinity of the radar system. Using several antennas to transmit and receive radar waveforms (e.g., antenna units connected to transmitter units 11 and receiver units 12) enables the estimation of additional information associated with the objects, such as the direction in which the object is located (angular position: azimuth and/or elevation), which is sometimes referred to as the direction of arrival (DOA) of the objects…transmitted radar waveforms are reflected by a object…the reflected signal is received the radar system's various receive antenna units connected to receiver units 12…depending upon the direction of arrival (DOA) of the object's reflected signals, different pathlengths between the various transmit antenna units, objects, and receive antenna units are realized, enabling the radar system to determine phase differences in the received signals…analysis of these phase differences is carried out to estimate the DoA of a detected object (paragraph 24); before the DoA processing is carried out, the radar signal received at the various receive antenna units is processed in such a fashion that objects detected at different distances (i.e., ranges) and with different (radial) velocities (i.e., Doppler values) are isolated with so-called Range-Doppler processing, which processes the received radar signal into a number of Range-Doppler subdivisions, referred to as bins…if, for a specific Range-Doppler bin (i.e., a specific range and velocity), one or more objects are detected, DoA processing is started by using the values of that Range-Doppler bin from all Transmit-Receive antenna combinations…the use of multiple transmit antennas and multiple receive antennas is called MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) processing…with NT transmitters and NR receivers, for example, there are NT*NR values per Range-Doppler bin…these various signal combinations generate a radar array that is equivalent to a single transmit radar with a virtual NT*NR receiver array…the set of values that belong to one Range-Doppler bin is also called a snapshot (paragraph 25).
Jiang et al. (CN 107167785 A) [English Translation] describes the system model establishing bistatic MIMO radar, M transmit elements simultaneously emit narrow band signal illuminating K far-field target at the receiving end by N receiving array, wherein the emission array and the receiving array are made of a uniform linear array, array element spacing dt=dr= II. /2, the emitting angle is 0…the receiving angle is the k-th target emitting angle and receiving angle are respectively 0 k and L is a fast beat number, wherein it comprises the following steps: step one, MIMO radar receiving end N of the receiving array for multiple times fast shoot echo data signal obtained by collecting and processing the first fast shoot period of echo data can be written into a N* N matrix X (I}: wherein, represents M rows 1 columns of transmission direction vector, t represents the transmitting end. represents N row 1 line of the receiving direction vector, r is receiving end, S denotes a transmission waveform matrix, where sm (m=1, ..., M} represents the m emitting array the emitted waveform, the encoding length is Lt, and S is a orthogonal matrix, SSH = memory represents the first fast beat during the k-th target scattering coefficient…represents the non-Gaussian noise matrix a N row, obeys the Student-T distribution…step two, the signal X (I} received by the N receiving array matching filter processing to obtain: wherein, is N rows of signal after matched filtering of M columns…step three, performing vectorization process the matching result after filtering…after pre-processing the observation data can be expressed as: wherein, is the target scattering matrix; is the noise vector at the first fast shoot period after processing, the dimension MN row 1…is a combined guide vector matrix, the dimension is MN rows and K columns at (8 k) and are respectively the transmitting and receiving direction vector is the Kronecker matrix product…step four, collecting the L fast shoot period of data y {I} (1=1, ... , L), can obtain an observation data matrix Y, which is a dimension as a random matrix of MN XL…represents a combined guide matrix of receiving angle, B is the mean is 0, and the variance is 1 the target scattering matrix, N is the MN x L dimensional factor of Student-T non-Gaussian noise matrix distributed by elements of Gaussian noise matrix multiplied by gamma distribution…step five, sampling of the received signal covariance matrix can be expressed as calculating maximum likelihood calculating covariance matrix estimate…step six, the receiving array element number greater than number of snapshots, L <MN, the maximum likelihood estimation method results in unanswered because of rank deficiency, then adopts linear shrink method so that process fixed-point iteration can continue…step seven, obtaining the robust covariance matrix estimation on the basis of the combined estimated peak search function using 2D-MW method can obtain the receiving angle…step eight, when the receiving array element number and fast beat number is the same order of magnitude…using random asymptotic spectrum theory and the contour integration techniques in matrix theory to generate a peak search function…step nine, the for peak search can obtain emission angle and receiving angle (page 2 paragraph 6).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights