DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-21 and 23-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zolesio (Signal Reconstruction via Under-Sampled Signals) in view of Onic (US 2018/0059216 A1).
In regard to claim 16, Zolesio discloses:
an input configured to receive a radar signal representing a received radar frame that has reflected from one or more targets (Fig. 1; p. 304, ¶2-3; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3), wherein the received radar frame includes a plurality of signals (Fig. 1), the plurality of signals including at least two groups of signals comprising a first group of signals with a first pulse repetition interval between the signals in the first group of signals (group to the left over the bracket labeled by “N samples”, Fig. 1), and a second group of signals with a second pulse repetition interval between the signals in the second group of signals (the remaining signals in Fig. 1), wherein the first group and the second group are separated by a group separation time interval between a final signal in the first group and a first signal in the second group (1.5 Tr, Fig. 1), wherein the group separation time interval is different than one or both of the first pulse repetition interval and the second pulse repetition interval (group separation time interval 1.5 Tr being different than first pulse repetition interval Tr and second pulse repetition interval Tr, Fig. 1; p. 305, ¶1); and
processing circuitry (processing circuitry to the right of the antenna array, Fig. 11) coupled to the input (antenna array, Fig. 11), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to [compensate for under-sampled signals in the receive radar frame (p. 304, ¶2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3) by]
generate a modified received radar frame by performing a first extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the signals in the first group of the received radar frame, to generate at least one extrapolated signal in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305, ¶2), and
process the modified received radar frame to determine properties of the one or more targets (p. 304, ¶3 p. 304, col. 2, final ¶) [where the properties include range and velocity].
Zolesio fails to disclose the radar signal is a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave, FMCW, radar comprising chirps.
Onic teaches a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar [using under-sampled signals, where the use of under-sampled signals is compensated by using a second receive chain] (Fig. 1; ¶2-3; ¶52) [where an FMCW signals are called chirps].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the second signal chain under-sampling compensation of Onic with the particular processing under-sampling compensation of Zolesio with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the costs of the system of Onic by compensating for under-sampling with additional processing steps rather than adding a second signal chain / additional components/hardware.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the compensation for under-sampling in an FMCW radar is done without the need for a second signal chain / additional components/hardware.
In regard to claim 17, Zolesio further discloses the at least one extrapolated chirp generated by the first extrapolation is extrapolated to a time that is after the first group in the received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the first extrapolated signal from the first group is the leftmost * on the bottom row, which is after (to the right) of the rightmost X from the first group in the middle row]. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 18, Zolesio further discloses the first extrapolation is configured to generate a plurality of extrapolated chirps which are extrapolated such that the plurality of extrapolated chirps are interleaved with chirps of the second group in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals in the first group are a plurality of signals (see the bottom row) which are interleaved with signals of the second group (see the bottom row compared to the middle row)]. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 19, Zolesio further discloses performing a second extrapolation (top row, Fig. 2) in addition to performing the first extrapolation (bottom row, Fig. 2), wherein performing the second extrapolation is based on temporal positions of the chirps in the second group of the received radar frame, to generate at least one extrapolated signal in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305, ¶2). In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 20, Zolesio further discloses the at least one extrapolated signal generated by the second extrapolation is extrapolated to a time that is before the second group in the received radar frame (signals in the top row is before (to the left) of the second group in the middle row, Fig. 2). In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 22, Zolesio further discloses the second extrapolation is configured to generate a plurality of extrapolated signals which are extrapolated such that the extrapolated chirps are interleaved with signals of the first group in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals from the second group (top row) are interleaved with the signal of the first group (middle row)]. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 23, Zolesio further discloses the first extrapolation comprises linear extrapolation (Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3 and 5; p. 305, ¶2) [where Fig. 1 shows the missing signals half-way between the received signals as dots, where the extrapolation/reconstruction provides the missing signal. The missing signals are being constructed linearly, i.e., halfway in time between the receives signals.]
In regard to claim 24, Zolesio further discloses the processing apparatus is configured to perform the first extrapolation based on Burg's algorithm for autoregressive parameter estimation (p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305. col. 2, ¶ before the final ¶).
In regard to claim 25, Zolesio further discloses
extract the signals in the first group of chirps from the received radar frame to generate a first received radar frame (group to the left over the bracket labeled by “N samples”, Fig. 1);
extract the signals in the second group of signals from the received radar frame to generate a second received radar frame (the remaining signals in Fig. 1);
generate a modified first received radar frame by performing the first extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the signals in the first group of the first received radar frame, to generate at least one extrapolated signal at a time that is after the first group in the modified first received radar frame (bottom row, Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305, ¶2);
generate a modified second received radar frame by performing a second extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the signals in the second group of the second received radar frame, to generate at least one extrapolated signal at a time that is before the second group in the modified second received radar frame (top row, Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305, ¶2)[; and
[wherein the modified received radar frame comprises a sum of the modified first received radar frame and the modified second received radar frame (p. 304, ¶3; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3)].
Generating a Fast Fourier Transform, FFT, of the modified first received radar frame; generating a FFT of the modified second received radar frame; summing of the FFT of the modified first received radar frame and the FFT of the modified second received radar frame; and determining the modified received radar frame by taking an inverse FFT of the sum is mathematically equivalent to summing modified first received radar frame and the modified second received radar frame.
This is based on the well-known property of FFTs that:
FFT(signal1) + FFT(signal2) = FFT(signal1 + signal2)
Thus:
signal1 + signal2 = IFFT( FFT(signal1) + FFT(signal2) )
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Zolesio is not taken to be considered to teach these features, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.f ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical opera
In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 26, Zolesio further discloses providing for transmission of the radar signal having the first group of signals with the first pulse repetition interval and the second group of signals with the second pulse repetition interval (p. 305, ¶1). In the combination, the signals are FMCW chirps.
In regard to claim 27, Zolesio further disclose the first pulse repetition interval and the second pulse repetition interval each comprise the product of a number of groups, N, and a base time interval, T; and the group separation time interval between any two temporally adjacent groups of chirps comprises NT plus or minus T (Fig. 1) [where N=2 and T=Tr/2, thus NT = 2*(Tr/2) = Tr, and thus NT + T = Tr + Tr/2 = 3*Tr/2 = 1.5 Tr]. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 28, Zolesio further discloses the extrapolated signals are temporally non-overlapping with the signals of the received radar frame (Fig. 2). In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 29, Zolesio further discloses the properties of the one or more targets determined based on the modified received radar frame consist of one or more properties selected from a distance to a target (p. 304, ¶3); a direction towards a target; and a velocity of a target (p. 304, ¶3).
In regard to claim 30, Zolesio further discloses the first pulse repetition interval is the same as the second pulse repetition interval (Tr, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 31, Zolesio discloses:
receiving, by an input, a radar signal representing a received radar frame that has reflected from one or more targets Fig. 1; p. 304, ¶2-3; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3), wherein the received radar frame includes a plurality of signals, the plurality of signals including at least two groups of signals comprising a first group of signals with a first pulse repetition interval between the signals in the first group of signals (group to the left over the bracket labeled by “N samples”, Fig. 1), and a second group of signals with a second pulse repetition interval between the signals in the second group of signals (the remaining signals in Fig. 1), wherein the first group and the second group are separated by a group separation time interval between a final signal in the first group and a first signal in the second group (1.5 Tr, Fig. 1), wherein the group separation time interval is different than one or both of the first pulse repetition interval and the second pulse repetition interval (group separation time interval 1.5 Tr being different than first pulse repetition interval Tr and second pulse repetition interval Tr, Fig. 1; p. 305, ¶1);
the processing circuitry (processing circuitry to the right of the input/antenna array, Fig. 11) [configured to compensate for under-sampled signals in the receive radar frame (p. 304, ¶2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3) by] generating a modified received radar frame by performing a first extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the signals in the first group of the received radar frame, to generate at least one extrapolated signal in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2; p. 304, col. 2, ¶3; p. 305, ¶2); and
processing, by the processing circuitry, the modified received radar frame to determine properties of the one or more targets (p. 304, ¶3 p. 304, col. 2, final ¶) [where the properties include range and velocity].
Zolesio fails to disclose the radar signal is a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave, FMCW, radar comprising chirps.
Onic teaches a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar [using under-sampled signals, where the use of under-sampled signals is compensated by using a second receive chain] (Fig. 1; ¶2-3; ¶52) [where an FMCW signals are called chirps].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the second signal chain under-sampling compensation of Onic with the particular processing under-sampling compensation of Zolesio with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the costs of the system of Onic by compensating for under-sampling with additional processing steps rather than adding a second signal chain / additional components/hardware.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the compensation for under-sampling in an FMCW radar is done without the need for a second signal chain / additional components/hardware.
In regard to claim 32, Zolesio further discloses the first extrapolation is configured to generate a plurality of extrapolated signals which are extrapolated such that the plurality of extrapolated signals are at least partly interleaved with signals of the second group in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals from the first group on the bottom row are interleaved with the second group of signals in the middle row]. In the combination, the signals are chirps. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 33, Zolesio further discloses performing a second extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the signals in the second group of the received radar frame, to generate a plurality of extrapolated signals in the modified received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals from the second group is show in the top row]. In the combination, the signals are signals. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
In regard to claim 34, Zolesio further discloses the plurality of extrapolated signals generated by the second extrapolation are extrapolated such that the plurality of extrapolated signals are at least partly interleaved with signals of the first group in the modified received radar frame. In the combination, the signals are signals. In the combination, the signals are chirps (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals from the second group is show in the top row, where the extrapolated signals are interleaved with signals of the first group in the middle row].
In regard to claim 35, Zolesio further discloses performing a second extrapolation, based on temporal positions of the chirps in the second group of the received radar frame, to generate a plurality of extrapolated signals in the modified received radar frame, and wherein the extrapolated signals are temporally non-overlapping with the signals of the received radar frame (Fig. 2) [where the extrapolated signals from the second group is show in the top row, where the extrapolated signals are temporally non-overlapping with signals of the received radar frame in the middle row]. In the combination, the signals are signals. In the combination, the signals are chirps.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zolesio and Onic, as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Wu (US 2022/0334240 A1).
Zolesio further discloses a number of groups other than two groups can be used (p. 304, col. 2, ¶2 and ¶4).
Zolesio fails to disclose generating the modified received radar frame with a third pulse repetition interval less than the first pulse repetition interval and less than the second pulse repetition interval.
Wu teaches that it is known to use three groups of received radar frames (Fig. 3A) [corresponding to TX1, TX2, and TX3], wherein each group has a different pulse repetition interval (¶17; ¶48) [to enhance radar accuracy (¶17), in an FMCW radar (¶19)].
Based on the suggestion of Zolesio, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the art for examples of group numbers different than two, leading to Wu and the teaching of three groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the additional feature of Wu of having different pulse repetition frequencies into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enhance radar accuracy, as motived by Wu.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the radar accuracy is enhanced.
In the combination, all three groups have a different pulse repetition interval, where the pulse repetition interval of the group with the smallest pulse repetition interval can be designated the third pulse repetition interval.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Iovescu (The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors), which teaches that FMCW signals are called chirps (p. 3, ¶1).
HELM (Properties of the Fourier Transform), which teaches FFT(signal1) + FFT(signal2) = FFT(signal1 + signal2) (p. 15, section (i)).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights