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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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) 3, and 15-16 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 3 recites “the number of the first transmission antennas is different from the number of the second transmission antennas” which renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. The plurality of first transmission antennas and the plurality of second transmission antennas have not been positively introduced.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 16 recites “the number of the Doppler shift amounts assigned to the first transmission antenna and the number of the Doppler shift amounts assigned to the second transmission antenna” which renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. The plurality of number of Doppler shift amounts have not been positively introduced.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-2, 6-8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigami et al. (JP 2020148754 A “KISHIGAMI”), in view of Lerner et al. (US 2024/0372268 A1 “LERNER”).
Regarding claim 1, KISHIGAMI discloses (Examiner’s note: What KISHIGAMI does not disclose is ) a radar apparatus comprising: a plurality of transmission antennas including a first transmission antenna forming a first beam and a second transmission antenna (the radar transmission unit 100 generates a radar signal (radar transmission signal) and transmits the radar transmission signal at a predetermined transmission cycle using a transmission array antenna composed of multiple transmission antennas 105-1 to 105-Nt [0032]) the transmitting branch simultaneously sends out different multiplexed transmission signals from multiple transmitting antennas [0028]), the transmission signal being a signal to which a phase rotation corresponding to a Doppler shift amount assigned to each of the plurality of transmission antennas has been applied (the nth Doppler shift unit 104 may apply a phase rotation to the input mth chirp signal (transmitted signal) that is a different Doppler shift amount than when using equation (5) [0168]), wherein a Doppler shift interval by the plurality of transmission antennas is uneven on a Doppler frequency axis (dpn is a component that causes the phase rotation to be unevenly spaced in the Doppler frequency range [0169]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LERNER teaches that at antennas 1,2,3 we transit with phase shifts [0,−60,60] respectively. At antennas 4,5,6 we transmit with alternating phases—with a phase shift of (180n+[30,60,−90]), where n may be the chirp serial number. Note that a phase shift of 180n may be equivalent to a frequency shift of half the sampling rate, which may be the prf [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LERNER, because doing so would obtain uniform or almost uniform coverage over at least a majority of the FOV and improve target detection capabilities of the MIMO radars, as recognized by LERNER.
Regarding claim 2, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first pattern and the second pattern relate to the Doppler shift interval (at antennas 1,2,3 we transit with phase shifts [0,−60,60] respectively. At antennas 4,5,6 we transmit with alternating phases—with a phase shift of (180n+[30,60,−90]), where n may be the chirp serial number. Note that a phase shift of 180n may be equivalent to a frequency shift of half the sampling rate, which may be the prf [LERNER 0144], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); a Doppler multiplexing number by the first transmission antenna and a Doppler multiplexing number by the second transmission antenna are identical to each other (at antennas 1,2,3 we transit with phase shifts [0,−60,60] respectively. At antennas 4,5,6 we transmit with alternating phases—with a phase shift of (180n+[30,60,−90]) [LERNER 0144], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); and at least one of a plurality of the Doppler shift intervals by the first transmission antenna is different from the Doppler shift interval by the second transmission antenna (the intervals of the Doppler shift amounts DOPｎ (Doppler shift intervals) are not equal, and at least one Doppler interval is different [KISHIGAMI 0062]).
Regarding claim 6, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Doppler shift interval by the first transmission antenna is uneven on the Doppler frequency axis (dpn is a component that causes the phase rotation to be unevenly spaced in the Doppler frequency range [KISHIGAMI 0169], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Doppler shift interval by the second transmission antenna is uneven on the Doppler frequency axis (dpn is a component that causes the phase rotation to be unevenly spaced in the Doppler frequency range [KISHIGAMI 0169], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of reception antennas that receives a reflected wave signal resulted from the transmission signal being reflected by a target (the reflected wave signal, which is a radar transmission signal reflected by, is received using a receiving array antenna that includes multiple receiving antennas 202-1 to 202-Na [KISHIGAMI 0033]); and reception circuitry, which, in operation, performs direction estimation of the target using the reflected wave signal (the radar receiving unit 200 processes the reflected wave signals received by each receiving antenna 202 to perform, for example, the detection of the presence or absence of a target or the estimation of the direction of arrival of the reflected wave signal [KISHIGAMI 0033]).
Regarding claim 18, KISHIGAMI discloses a radar signal generating apparatus, comprising: signal generation circuitry, which, in operation, generates a transmission signal; and transmission circuitry, which, in operation, applies, to the transmission signal, a phase rotation corresponding to a Doppler shift amount assigned (the nth Doppler shift unit 104 may apply a phase rotation to the input mth chirp signal (transmitted signal) that is a different Doppler shift amount than when using equation (5) [0168]) to each of a plurality of transmission antennas that include a first transmission antenna forming a first beam and a second transmission antenna forming a second beam (the radar transmission unit 100 generates a radar signal (radar transmission signal) and transmits the radar transmission signal at a predetermined transmission cycle using a transmission array antenna composed of multiple transmission antennas 105-1 to 105-Nt [0032]) the transmitting branch simultaneously sends out different multiplexed transmission signals from multiple transmitting antennas [0028]), wherein a Doppler shift interval by the plurality of transmission antennas is uneven on a Doppler frequency axis (dpn is a component that causes the phase rotation to be unevenly spaced in the Doppler frequency range [0169]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LERNER teaches that at antennas 1,2,3 we transit with phase shifts [0,−60,60] respectively. At antennas 4,5,6 we transmit with alternating phases—with a phase shift of (180n+[30,60,−90]), where n may be the chirp serial number. Note that a phase shift of 180n may be equivalent to a frequency shift of half the sampling rate, which may be the prf [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LERNER, because doing so would obtain uniform or almost uniform coverage over at least a majority of the FOV and improve target detection capabilities of the MIMO radars, as recognized by LERNER.
Regarding claim 19, KISHIGAMI discloses a radar signal generating method, comprising: generating a transmission signal; applying, to the transmission signal, a phase rotation corresponding to a Doppler shift amount assigned (the nth Doppler shift unit 104 may apply a phase rotation to the input mth chirp signal (transmitted signal) that is a different Doppler shift amount than when using equation (5) [0168]) to each of a plurality of transmission antennas that include a first transmission antenna forming a first beam and a second transmission antenna (the radar transmission unit 100 generates a radar signal (radar transmission signal) and transmits the radar transmission signal at a predetermined transmission cycle using a transmission array antenna composed of multiple transmission antennas 105-1 to 105-Nt [0032]) the transmitting branch simultaneously sends out different multiplexed transmission signals from multiple transmitting antennas [0028]), wherein a Doppler shift interval by the plurality of transmission antennas is uneven on a Doppler frequency axis (dpn is a component that causes the phase rotation to be unevenly spaced in the Doppler frequency range [0169]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LERNER teaches that at antennas 1,2,3 we transit with phase shifts [0,−60,60] respectively. At antennas 4,5,6 we transmit with alternating phases—with a phase shift of (180n+[30,60,−90]), where n may be the chirp serial number. Note that a phase shift of 180n may be equivalent to a frequency shift of half the sampling rate, which may be the prf [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LERNER, because doing so would obtain uniform or almost uniform coverage over at least a majority of the FOV and improve target detection capabilities of the MIMO radars, as recognized by LERNER.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0221569 A1 “WANG”).
Regarding claim 3, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first pattern and the second pattern relate to the number of transmission antennas (the interval of the Doppler shift applied to a transmitted signal sent from two transmitting antennas 105 is set to an interval obtained by dividing the Doppler frequency range in which aliasing does not occur by the number of transmitting antennas 105 [KISHIGAMI 0071]);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WANG teaches that numbers of transmit antennas included by the apparatus range from 1 to N, N is greater than or equal to 3, and at least two transmit antennas in each transmit antenna group have inconsecutive numbers; or any two transmit antennas in each transmit antenna group have inconsecutive numbers [0053]. Quantities of transmit antennas included in the at least two transmit antenna groups are different or the same [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of WANG, because doing so would enable application to both a case in which a quantity of transmit antennas is a prime number and a case in which a quantity of transmit antennas is not a prime number; therefore, an application scope is wider, as recognized by WANG.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and further in view of Jansen et al. (US 2022/0066012 A1 “JANSEN”).
Regarding claim 4, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first pattern and the second pattern relate to a Doppler multiplexing number (the Doppler multiplexing number is equal to the number of transmitting antennas Nt [KISHIGAMI 0264]);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JANSEN teaches that selection of QPSK or a different type of modulation format depends on how design requirements such as how many transmitters and/or transmit antennas are in use [0050]. Using at least two antennas (e.g., two or three antennas) associated with one antenna set associated with a first field of view and using at least one antenna associated with another antenna set associated with a different field of view than the first, in connection with the different waveforms sent via each of these antennas [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of JANSEN, because doing so would facilitate multiple operating modes, FOVs, and ranges, as recognized by JANSEN.
Regarding claim 17, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JANSEN teaches using at least two antennas (e.g., two or three antennas) associated with one antenna set associated with a first field of view and using at least one antenna associated with another antenna set associated with a different field of view than the first, in connection with the different waveforms sent via each of these antennas [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of JANSEN, because doing so would facilitate multiple operating modes, FOVs, and ranges, as recognized by JANSEN.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0209396 A1 “LEE”).
Regarding claim 9, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LEE teaches that the transmitter antenna unit 210 may include at least two transmitter antenna groups. Here, each transmitter antenna group may include a plurality of transmitter antennas arranged in a diagonal direction at a first horizontal interval and a first vertical interval or arranged in a diagonal direction which is based on the first horizontal interval and the first vertical interval [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LEE, because doing so would enable horizontal resolution and vertical resolution to be adjusted by changing the size of an antenna space of the radar in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, as recognized by LEE.
Regarding claim 14, KISHIGAMI, as modified, discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 9,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LEE teaches that a receiver antenna of the first receiver antenna group Rx1 and a receiver antenna of the second receiver antenna group Rx2 arranged adjacent to each other may be arranged to have a vertical offset based on a second vertical interval [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LEE, because doing so would precisely detect information about an object in the horizontal and vertical directions, as recognized by LEE.
Claim(s) 10-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and further in view of Alland (US 2015/0253420 A1 “ALLAND”).
Regarding claim 10, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ALLAND teaches that the transmit antennas have a horizontal offset distance 428 of one-half wavelength (λ/2) [0044]. Each of the plurality of paired vertical arrays that form the receive antenna 620 is horizontally spaced apart by one wavelength [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of ALLAND, because doing so would improve the effective spatial resolution, as recognized by ALLAND.
Regarding claim 11, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER/ ALLAND discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the specified value is a value in a range of from 0.45 times to 0.8 times the wavelength (the transmit antennas have a horizontal offset distance 428 of one-half wavelength (λ/2) [ALLAND 0044]. Each of the plurality of paired vertical arrays that form the receive antenna 620 is horizontally spaced apart by one wavelength [ALLAND 0051], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, KISHIGAMI, as modified, discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ALLAND teaches that if there is no desire for elevation angle detection, the features that provide for improved grating lobe characteristics can still be utilized when the vertical offset distance is set to zero [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of ALLAND, because doing so would simplify antenna arrangement, as recognized by ALLAND.
Regarding claim 13, KISHIGAMI, as modified, discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ALLAND teaches that the second transmit antenna 124 is vertically offset from the first transmit antenna 122 by a vertical offset distance 126 [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of ALLAND, because doing so would enable system capability for elevation angle to be determined, as recognized by ALLAND.
Regarding claim 16, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER/ ALLAND discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the number of the Doppler shift amounts assigned to the first transmission antenna and the number of the Doppler shift amounts assigned to the second transmission antenna are switched for each transmission period of the transmission signal (the Doppler shift units 104-1 to 104-Nt set the Doppler shift amount DOPｎodd for each odd-numbered transmission period Tr, and the Doppler shift amount DOPｎeven for each even-numbered transmission period Tr [KISHIGAMI 0362]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0025914 A1 “LI”).
Regarding claim 15, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LI teaches controlling two of the transmitters 26 [0046]. LI further teaches that a first portion of the received signal corresponds to the first signal pulses and includes a single peak 72. A second portion of the received signal corresponds to the second signal pulses and includes two peaks 74 and 76 [0048]. The controller 30 uses the first and second portions of the received signal for detection and analysis based on principles of Doppler frequency shifts in reflected signals and the signaling technique that includes a sequence of 2N transmitted pulses, simultaneous transmission of all pulses from multiple transmitters, and a binary phase shift for N of the 2N pulses [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LI, because doing so would improve separation of transmitted signals while reducing ambiguity, as recognized by LI.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIGAMI, in view of LERNER, and ALLAND, and further in view of LEE.
Regarding claim 20, KISHIGAMI/ LERNER/ ALLAND discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LEE teaches that a receiver antenna of the first receiver antenna group Rx1 and a receiver antenna of the second receiver antenna group Rx2 arranged adjacent to each other may be arranged to have a vertical offset based on a second vertical interval [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KISHIGAMI to include the teachings of LEE, because doing so would precisely detect information about an object in the horizontal and vertical directions, as recognized by LEE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest reference KISHIGAMI discloses a radar reception unit 200 that includes a plurality of transmission antennas 105 for transmitting transmission signals and a radar transmission unit 100 for applying Doppler shift amounts to the transmission signals transmitted from the transmission antennas 105. Each interval of the Doppler shift amounts is set to an interval obtained by dividing a Doppler frequency range which is an object of Doppler analysis into uneven intervals.
Furthermore, LERNER discloses a MIMO radar that include at least one segmented coprime array of antennas. The MIMO radar may include one or more linear antenna arrays (LAAs) of transmission antennas and one or more LLAs of reception antennas. A LAA may include one or more spaced apart groups (or segments) of antennas.
However, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither KISHIGAMI nor LERNER anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 5, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “the first pattern and the second pattern relate to an order of intervals of a plurality of the Doppler shift amounts; a plurality of first Doppler shift intervals by the first transmission antenna, and a plurality of second Doppler shift intervals by the second transmission antenna are identical to each other; and an order of the plurality of first Doppler shift intervals on the Doppler frequency axis is different from an order of the plurality of second Doppler shift intervals on the Doppler frequency axis” as recited in claim 5.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2021/0333386 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a hybrid multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar concept. Via a first subset of a plurality of transmit channels and during a first time interval, first frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar signals are con-currently transmitted with different phase offsets among different transmit channels of the first subset in accordance with a first predefined code division multiplexing scheme. Via a second subset of the transmit channels and during a second time interval subsequent to the first time interval, second FMCW radar signals are concurrently transmitted with different phase offsets among different transmit channels of the second subset in accordance with a second predefined code division multiplexing scheme.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (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 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights