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 01/17/2025, 12/09/2025, 06/03/2026 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 is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/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 8 recites the limitation traversing all possible combinations of transmitting channel orders of each of 2, 3, ..., and the number of the sub-bands-1 targets. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (sub-bands-1) in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 14-17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim(s) 4-6 and 14-17, Applicant's claim(s) encompass an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. For instance, Wu and Jiang fail to disclose the specific probability calculation using an energy matrix and superposition matrix as claimed:
wherein calculating the probability corresponding to each of all the possible combinations comprises: for each respective possible combination of all the possible combinations, calculating, according to an energy matrix of each of the at least two targets and a superposition matrix corresponding to the respective possible combination, a least-square estimation of the energy matrix of each of the at least two targets corresponding to the respective possible combination; and calculating the probability corresponding to the respective possible combination according to the energy matrix, the superposition matrix, and the least-square estimation of the energy matrix of each of the at least two targets; wherein the energy matrix is a matrix obtained according to energy of the echo signals in each of sub-bands of a corresponding Doppler spectrum corresponding to the respective possible combination; and wherein each column of the superposition matrix corresponds to a superposition factor of a target of the at least two targets, wherein in the superposition factor, element values corresponding to a transmitting channel order of the target are set to be 1, and other element values are set to be 0 (emphasis added).
As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
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) 1-3, 9-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20220283286 hereinafter Wu) in view of Jiang et al. (CN 114488154 hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches A signal processing method for target detection, comprising (0007 “FIG. 3 is a simplified block diagram illustrating an interaction between the radar and a moving target within two consecutive PRIs”):
transmitting detection signals (fig 1);
receiving echo signals related to the detection signals (fig 3);
processing the echo signals to obtain range-Doppler two-dimensional data (0026 “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the MIMO virtual array antennas 230 can be designated as a two-dimensional matrix”; 0008 “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a 12-element MIMO virtual array measurement vector with one target present in a range-Doppler cell.”);
calculating a plurality of probabilities of Doppler spectrums corresponding to transmitting channel orders of at least two targets (0009 “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a 12-element MIMO virtual array measurement vector with two targets present in a range-Doppler cell.”) under different aliasing combinations according to the range-Doppler two-dimensional data (0010 “FIGS. 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B are spectral diagrams illustrating examples of hypothesis tests for different levels of ambiguity in A.”; 0047 “the following three hypotheses are established: H0: If ambiguity of  is ±(0π+multiples of 6π [radians]), including 0π, the Phase Compensation Error Correction of TX2 and TX3 measurements should be [0°, 0°], respectively.”);
determining a Doppler spectrum of each of the at least two targets according to an aliasing combination corresponding to a maximum probability among the plurality of probabilities (0053 “In light of this observation, the correct hypothesis should lead to the sparsest angle spectrum estimate, leading to the fewest spectral points above the threshold”); and
detecting the at least two targets according to the Doppler spectrum of each of the at least two targets (0009 “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a 12-element MIMO virtual array measurement vector with two targets present in a range-Doppler cell.”).
Wu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jiang teaches
transmitting detection signals in a Doppler division multiplexing (DDM) mode (p.5 “In order to solve the problem that the TDM MIMO radar in the existing technology cannot ensure the angle resolution performance of the action distance range, the embodiment claims a DDM (Doppler) considering the angle resolution performance and radar action distance range Multiplexing, Doppler frequency division multiplexing) MIMO radar signal processing method.”).
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 Jiang with the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar performance (Jiang p.5). 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, Jiang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular DDM features. Since both Wu and Jiang 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 2, the cited prior art teaches The signal processing method of claim 1, wherein calculating the plurality of probabilities of the Doppler spectrums corresponding to the transmitting channel orders of the at least two targets under the different aliasing combinations according to the range-Doppler two-dimensional data comprises (Wu 0029 “Note that a Doppler spectrum spans an unambiguous radial velocity detection range from −V.sub.r,max to +V.sub.r,max. As will be discussed in greater detail below, any radial velocity outside the unambiguous range will be aliased onto the −π to +π spectrum (or, equivalently, the 0 to +2π Doppler spectrum corresponding to 0 to 2V.sub.r,max radial velocity). [0030] 2. When there are multiple targets in a single detection cell. Targets within the same resolution cell have similar modulo-2V.sub.r,max radial velocities but actual velocities may differ significantly”):
traversing all possible combinations of the transmitting channel orders of the at least two targets (Wu Abstract “The dealiasing processing first forms multiple hypotheses associated with the phase corrections for the radar transmitters based on a measured radial velocity of a range-Doppler cell being processed.”); and
calculating a probability corresponding to each of all the possible combinations to obtain the plurality of probabilities (Wu Abstract “A correct hypothesis, from the multiple hypotheses, is selected based on a least-spurious spectrum criterion. Using this approach, embodiments require only single-frame processing and can be applied to two or more transmitters in a TDM MIMO radar system.”).
Regarding claim 3, The cited prior art teaches The signal processing method of claim 2, wherein traversing all the possible combinations of the transmitting channel orders of the at least two targets comprises at least one of:
traversing possible combinations of transmitting channel orders of two targets (Wu Abstract “The dealiasing processing first forms multiple hypotheses associated with the phase corrections for the radar transmitters based on a measured radial velocity of a range-Doppler cell being processed. A correct hypothesis, from the multiple hypotheses, is selected based on a least-spurious spectrum criterion. Using this approach, embodiments require only single-frame processing and can be applied to two or more transmitters in a TDM MIMO radar system.”); and
traversing possible combinations of transmitting channel orders of three targets (Wu 0055 “Plots 620 (FIG. 6B), 720 (FIG. 7B), and 820 (FIG. 8B) illustrate results for each ambiguity level for three targets”).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The signal processing method of claim 1, further comprising:
Wu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jiang teaches
before calculating the plurality of probabilities of the Doppler spectrums corresponding to the transmitting channel orders of the at least two targets under the different aliasing combinations according to the range-Doppler two-dimensional data, determining that the number of peaks of each of the Doppler spectrums is greater than the number of the plurality of transmitting channels (Jiang claim 7 “before the step of obtaining the RD data of the specified target in the corresponding speed interval of each transmission channel from the RD two-dimensional matrix according to the translation relation of multiple speed intervals in the Doppler dimension, the method further comprises: performing constant false alarm detection to all RD data in the RD two-dimensional matrix”).
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 Jiang with the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar performance (Jiang p.5). 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, Jiang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular DDM features. Since both Wu and Jiang 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, the cited prior art teaches A computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the signal processing method of claim 1 (Wu 0089 “The term “program,” as used herein, is defined as a sequence of instructions designed for execution on a computer system”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches An integrated circuit, comprising a radio frequency module, an analog signal processing module (0019 “This re-filtered signal is fed to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 149 and is output by each receiver module 140 as a digital signal D1”), and a digital signal processing module connected in sequence (0017 “In addition, the depicted radar system 100 may be implemented in integrated circuit form with the LFM TD-MIMO radar device 10”), wherein
the radio frequency module is configured to transmit detection signals (fig 1), and to receive echo signals through a plurality of receiving antennas (fig 1);
the analog signal processing module is configured to receive echo signals related to the detection signals (0019 “This re-filtered signal is fed to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 149 and is output by each receiver module 140 as a digital signal D1”) and perform down-frequency processing on the echo signals to obtain an intermediate frequency signal (0019 “At each receiver module 140, the received (radio frequency) antenna signal is amplified by a low noise amplifier (LNA) 141 and then fed to a mixer 142 where it is mixed with the transmitted chirp signal generated by the RF conditioning unit 122. The resulting intermediate frequency signal is fed to a first high-pass filter (HPF)”); and
the digital signal processing module is configured to perform analog-to-digital conversion on the intermediate frequency signal to obtain a digital signal, and to perform following processing on the digital signal (0019 “This re-filtered signal is fed to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 149 and is output by each receiver module 140 as a digital signal D1.”):
processing the echo signals to obtain range-Doppler two-dimensional data (0026 “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the MIMO virtual array antennas 230 can be designated as a two-dimensional matrix”; 0008 “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a 12-element MIMO virtual array measurement vector with one target present in a range-Doppler cell.”);
calculating, according to the range-Doppler two-dimensional data, a plurality of probabilities of Doppler spectrums corresponding to transmitting channel orders of at least two targets under different aliasing combinations (0010 “FIGS. 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B are spectral diagrams illustrating examples of hypothesis tests for different levels of ambiguity in A.”; 0047 “the following three hypotheses are established: H0: If ambiguity of  is ±(0π+multiples of 6π [radians]), including 0π, the Phase Compensation Error Correction of TX2 and TX3 measurements should be [0°, 0°], respectively.”);
determining a Doppler spectrum of each of the at least two targets according to an aliasing combination corresponding to a maximum probability among the plurality of probabilities (0053 “In light of this observation, the correct hypothesis should lead to the sparsest angle spectrum estimate, leading to the fewest spectral points above the threshold”); and
detecting the at least two targets according to the Doppler spectrum of each of the at least two targets (0009 “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a 12-element MIMO virtual array measurement vector with two targets present in a range-Doppler cell.”).
Wu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jiang teaches
the radio frequency module is configured to transmit detection signals in a doppler division multiplexing (DDM) mode through a plurality of transmitting antennas (p.5 “In order to solve the problem that the TDM MIMO radar in the existing technology cannot ensure the angle resolution performance of the action distance range, the embodiment claims a DDM (Doppler) considering the angle resolution performance and radar action distance range Multiplexing, Doppler frequency division multiplexing) MIMO radar signal processing method.”).
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 Jiang with the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar performance (Jiang p.5). 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, Jiang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular DDM features. Since both Wu and Jiang 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 19, the cited prior art teaches A radio device, comprising:
a carrier (Wu 0017 “the radar microcontroller and processing unit 150 formed with separate integrated circuits (chips) or with a single chip, depending on the application.”);
the integrated circuit of claim 18, provided on the carrier (Wu fig 3); and
at least one antenna disposed on the carrier, or wherein the at least one antenna and the integrated circuit are integrated into an integrated device disposed on the carrier (Wu fig 3 [the chips are disposed on an apparatus corresponding to a carrier]);
wherein the integrated circuit is connected with the at least one antenna for transmitting detection signals and/or receiving echo signals (Wu fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art teaches A terminal device, comprising:
a device body (Wu 0005 “FIG. 1 which depicts a simplified schematic block diagram of a conventional LFM TD-MIMO automotive radar system that includes an LFM TD-MIMO radar device connected to a radar microcontroller and processing unit.”); and
the radio device of claim 19, disposed on the device body (Wu 0005 “FIG. 1 which depicts a simplified schematic block diagram of a conventional LFM TD-MIMO automotive radar system that includes an LFM TD-MIMO radar device connected to a radar microcontroller and processing unit.”);
wherein the radio device is used for target detection to provide reference information for operation of the device body (Wu 0023 “A detection algorithm, such as any variant of the CFAR algorithm (e.g., 170), is commonly used to identify those range-Doppler cells in which targets may be present (e.g., detected range-Doppler cells 172)”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20220283286 hereinafter Wu) in view of Jiang et al. (CN 114488154 hereinafter Jiang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Winkler et al. (US 20090201194 hereinafter Winkler).
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art teaches The signal processing method of claim 2,
Wu does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Winkler teaches
wherein traversing all the possible combinations of the transmitting channel orders of the at least two targets comprises: traversing all possible combinations of transmitting channel orders of each of 2, 3, ..., and the number of the sub-bands-1 targets (Abstract “The first mode includes a first combination of the plurality of transmit channels adapted to concurrently transmit outgoing signals. The second mode includes a plurality of different combinations of the plurality of transmit channels. Each of the plurality of different combinations has fewer transmit channels than the first combination. Other methods and systems are also disclosed.”).
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 Winkler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar detection (Winkler 0025). 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, Winkler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sub-band features. Since both the cited prior art and Winkler 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Li (US 20220283284) discloses “This document describes techniques and systems for frequency division multiplexing (FDM) with polyphase shifters. A radar system can include transmitters, receivers, polyphase shifters, and a processor (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