DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 4, 19, 26 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 20 are amended.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 16-17, 19-25 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen (US 20180156914) in view of Berry (US 20220091229).
Regarding Claim 1, Tuxen teaches the following limitations: A method, comprising: (Tuxen – [0019])
determining an estimated radar pose of a radar based at least in part on the at least one received camera frame; (Tuxen – [0038] For example, the imager may be a still camera or a video camera. [0010] In an embodiment, the radar device detects a distance to the object and one of a horizontal and vertical angle to the target. [0039] However, further embodiments may utilize any combination of the radar 102 and imager 104 such that information of all three dimensions (e.g. range, vertical angle and horizontal angle) are captured at selected time periods.)
determining an estimated radar angle by refining the estimated radar pose and the estimated elevation angle based at least in part on the first RCS response. (Tuxen – [Fig. 3], [Fig. 10], [0008] In an embodiment, the processor calculates a unity vector from the imager to the object and, based on the unity vector, the radar data and the separation vector, the processor calculates the position of the object in three dimensions. [0009] In an embodiment, the processor defines a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the overlap field of view and translates and rotates the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system. [0039] A three-dimensional radar generates data indicating range and/or range rate, a vertical angle and a horizontal angle. [0056] the imager 104 and the radar device 102 may both individually capture three-dimensional images measuring vertical and horizontal angles as well as ranges. In this instance, the computer 201 may merge the information such that the vertical angle measurements are merged together, horizontal angle measurements are merged together, and ranges are merged together such that all three parameters utilize redundant information to enhance accuracy.).
Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
storing a predefined look-up table that associates a plurality of radar cross-section (RCS) values with a plurality of elevation angle values; (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0011] A problem may exist in the uncertainty of radar elevation angle detection when it is mounted, for example, to a vehicle. Radar alignment uncertainty can lead to radar data uncertainty. For example, an accurate radar elevation angle helps to detect objects at a distance optimal for that radar. However, if radar elevation angle detection is flawed due to being off by some degrees, objects will be detected at a reduced distance. Azimuthal alignment errors can be detected with direct radar Angle-of-Arrival direction estimation right out of the radar when a particular target's relative angle is already known. Other means of measuring a radar elevation angle (also known as a radar pitch angle) may include measurements by some means of laser scanning or some mechanical measurement. [0022] Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a vehicle 102 having a sensor system 110 for a plurality of cameras, emitters, and sensors. [0032] After determining the peak signal value from SNR data collected by the radar from the reflected signal of each of the corner reflectors when they are in the ON position, a radar elevation angle measurement system may calculate a radar elevation angle based on the peak signal value and based on location information associated with the radar 302 and the reflection structure 306… The peak signal value may be correlated to a direction 304. Direction 304 may fall between corner reflector 308 and corner reflector 310. Knowing that direction and knowing the various distances and heights, a radar elevation angle measurement system may determine the radar elevation angle. [0036] Referring to diagram 404, when these detected steps are plotted over a set of points, a curve may be fitted to those points. This curve may have a second-degree polynomial curve fit into it. Based on this second-degree polynomial curve, a peak may be determined. The peak may be used in order to determine the elevation angle of the radar. If the radar is not pointed directly to one of the corner reflectors, by curve fitting across the other corner reflectors returns, it may be determined where the radar is effectively pointed with respect to the reflection structure.)
receiving at least one camera frame of a first radar target and a second radar target;
(Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
receiving a first RCS response for the first radar target and the second radar target, the first RCS response including a first RCS value; (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
identifying an estimated elevation angle of the radar from among the plurality of elevation angle values of the predefined look-up table using the first RCS value of the first RCS response; and (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 9, Tuxen teaches the following limitations:
A system, comprising: (Tuxen – [0001])
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: (Tuxen – [Claim 32])
receive a camera frame of at least one first radar target, determine an estimated radar pose of a radar based at least in part on the received camera frame of the at least one first radar target, (Tuxen – [0039])
receive a first RCS response for the at least one first radar target, the first RCS response including a first RCS value associated with the first radar target, determine an estimated elevation angle of the radar based at least in part on the first RCS response, (Tuxen – [0039])
receive a second RCS response for at least one second radar target, the second RCS response including a second RCS value associated with the second radar target, (Tuxen – [0039], [0056] Tuxen does not explicitly teach “second RCS response” or “second radar target” or “radar pitch”.)
determine an estimated radar angle by refining the estimated radar pose and the estimated elevation angle using the radar pitch. (Tuxen – [0039], [0056])
Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
estimate a radar pitch as a first value in response to a difference between the first RCS value and the second RCS value being less than or equal to a threshold and as a second value greater than the first value in response to the difference being greater than the threshold, and (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036] Curve fitting SNR values to determine peak values.)
second RCS response… second radar target… radar pitch (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 17, Tuxen teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: (Tuxen – [0064])
receive a camera frame of at least one first radar target, determine an estimated radar pose of a radar based at least in part on the received camera frame of the at least one first radar target, (Tuxen – [0039])
receive a first RCS response for the at least one first radar target, the first RCS response including a first RCS value associated with the first radar target, determine an estimated elevation angle of the radar based at least in part on the first RCS response, (Tuxen – [0039])
receive a second RCS response for at least one second radar target, the second RCS response including a second RCS value associated with the second radar target, (Tuxen – [0039], [0056] Tuxen does not explicitly teach “second RCS response” or “second radar target” or “radar pitch”.)
determine an estimated radar angle by refining the estimated radar pose and the estimated elevation angle using the radar pitch. (Tuxen – [0039], [0056])
Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
identify an estimated elevation angle from among the plurality of elevation angle values of the predefined look-up table using the first RCS value; (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
second RCS response… second radar target… radar pitch (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising receiving a second RCS response for at least one second radar target, wherein refining the estimated radar pose and the estimated elevation angle is based at least in part on the second RCS response that includes a second RCS value. (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 7, Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising estimating a radar pitch as a first value in response to a difference between the first RCS value and the second RCS value being less than or equal to a threshold and as a second value greater than the first value in response to the difference being greater than the threshold. (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tuxen further teaches:
wherein determine the estimated elevation angle includes obtaining an elevation angle, as the estimated elevation angle, from a predefined look-up table that associates a plurality of radar cross-section (RCS) values with a plurality of elevation angle values. (Tuxen – [0008-0009], [0039], [0056])
Regarding Claim 20, Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Berry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the estimated radar pose and the estimated radar elevation are refined using a radar pitch, the radar pitch is provided as a first value in response to a difference between the first RCS value and the second RCS value being less than or equal to a threshold and as a second value greater than the first value in response to the difference being greater than the threshold. (Berry – [Fig. 4], [0022], [0032], [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the multiple target SNR data of Berry in order to calibrate sensor functions (Berry - [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 21, Tuxen further teaches:
wherein the determining the estimated elevation angle includes converting the received camera frame to a radar frame having coordinates to identify a location of the first radar target. (Tuxen – [0056])
Regarding Claims 22, 24, Tuxen further teaches:
wherein the converting the received camera frame to a radar frame includes applying a predetermined camera calibration to the received camera frame. (Tuxen – [0056], [Fig. 10] Shows the relationship between the calibration parameters (separation vector t with orientation information phi sub c) and the radar range R. This relationship is further defined in the equation for R sub c and then converted to the radar frame using the equation for X [0007] In an embodiment, the processor includes data corresponding to a separation vector indicating a distance and orientation from the radar device to the imager. [0043] the separation between the radar 102 and the imager 104 are defined by a vector t of known length t and orientation). [0053] the system can calculate the distance R.sub.c 504 from the imager to the ball 106 as follows. [0054] (denoted by the position vector X with origin the radar position 102))
Regarding Claims 23, 25, Tuxen further teaches:
wherein the determining the estimated elevation angle includes converting the received camera frame to a radar frame having coordinates to identify a location of the first radar target. (Tuxen – [0056] the computer 201 may merge the information)
Regarding Claim 26, Tuxen further teaches:
wherein the RCS response includes an azimuth angle, and the estimated elevation angle is determined using the azimuth angle, azimuth calibration, and a predefined look-up table that associates one or more defined RCS values and one or more defined azimuth angles with defined elevation angles. (Tuxen – [0008-0009], [0039])
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen (US 20180156914) in view of Gammenthaler (US 20150219758), as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Moriyama (JP 2005127874).
Regarding Claim 8, 16, Tuxen does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Moriyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising transmitting instructions indicating a radar installation error. (Moriyama – [pg. 3 para. 2-3] This is a technique for obtaining calibration parameters… This method can solve problems such as installation errors and incident angle characteristics.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the camera/radar method of Tuxen with the installation error detection of Takeuchi in order to solve the effects of installation accuracy (Moriyama - [pg. 3 para. 2]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding the dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. The examiner disagrees due to the above-mentioned rejections.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Zeleny (US 20190072646) describes a vehicle radar system with overlapping fields of view and target angle determination.
Li (CN 113126077) describes a target detection system that determines a target angle in reference to a vehicle’s “blind spot”.
Gammenthaler (US 20150219758) describes a system for generating video data comprising a mobile radar system operating on a processor and configured to generate vertically tilted radar frame data for a plurality of vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645