0DETAILED 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 01/27/2023 and 10/12/2022 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/31/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a phased array module” in claims 1 and 19. For the purpose of examination, a phased array module will be understood as being any radar system as described within the instant application that performs the claimed function, para. 0035.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 10, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (US 20160221592 hereinafter Puttagunta) in view of Cattle (US 20190324134) and further in view of Melzer et al. (US 20190113600 hereinafter Melzer).
Regarding claim 1, Puttagunta teaches A radar system comprising: a (0066 “Sensors of the VA module may include cameras (e.g., still, video), remote sensors (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging), radar,”); and
one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions (0167 “Once an appropriately-configured compute cluster is generated, data storage and preprocessor component 1220”) that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
construct an image based on returned signals reflected off a target object from a single point (0092 “the TIA may utilize the global feature vectors to stitch together features from multiple points in space or from a single point in space using various image processing techniques (e.g., image stitching, geometric registration, image calibration, image blending). This results in a superset of feature data that has collated global feature vectors from multiple points or a single point in space.”),
determine one or more characteristics of a target object in the environment based on the image constructed from the returned signals from the single point (0092 “the TIA may utilize the global feature vectors to stitch together features from multiple points in space or from a single point in space using various image processing techniques (e.g., image stitching, geometric registration, image calibration, image blending). This results in a superset of feature data that has collated global feature vectors from multiple points or a single point in space.”; Abstract “Methods and apparatus for real time machine vision and point-cloud data analysis”).
Puttagunta does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Cattle teaches a phased array module configured to transmit a sequence of pulses to an environment according to a pre-determined pattern (fig 2; 0051 “In particular, phased array radars with electronic or mechanical beam scanning can be used to steer a beam through a large aperture to examine a useful field of view”; 0067 “the beam can effectively be scanned in any direction, after the signal has been recorded, thereby allowing for focusing along the spatial dimension. This is known as single-input multiple-output (SIMO) because a single signal or phase-shifted replicas of a single signal) are transmitted, and multiple receive signals are then recorded and processed”).
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 radar system and method of Cattle with the machine vision using a radar system and method of Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar imaging (Cattle 0007). 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, Cattle merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phased array system. Since both Puttagunta and Cattle disclose similar vehicular radar systems, 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.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Melzer teaches wherein the image comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels (0009 “Range/Doppler Map”; fig 6),
a first dimension of the 2D array of pixels representing a sample number from a sample of the received signals and a second dimension of the 2D array of pixels representing a frequency value associated with the sample of the received signals, wherein each pixel value of each pixel from the 2D array of pixels represents a signal strength of a sample corresponding to a sample number and a frequency value of the pixel in the image (fig 6 [illustrates a Range Doppler Map which is used in target detection. Each pixel in the map represent a signal strength where the y axis is the frequency sample]).
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 radar system and method of Melzer with the teachings of Puttagunta and Cattle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar processing (Melzer 0061). 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, Melzer merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular range doppler map featuers. Since both the previous combination and Melzer disclose similar vehicular radar systems, 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 3, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 1, wherein constructing the image based on the returned signals comprises: generating the image from a return characteristic for each combination of a representation for a plurality of frequencies (Cattle Abstract “Antennas oriented at a first orientation toward an area of interest can transform radar signals through a first transformation that physically maps the plurality of radar signals with a plurality of unique beam angles corresponding to a plurality of unique frequencies”) and a representation for time durations (Cattle 0097 “The first and most common technique, as described previously, is to measure range through time-domain measurement.”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Puttagunta teaches A radar system comprising: a (0066 “Sensors of the VA module may include cameras (e.g., still, video), remote sensors (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging), radar,”); and
one or more processors electrically coupled to the (0167 “Once an appropriately-configured compute cluster is generated, data storage and preprocessor component 1220”), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
construct a point cloud image based on returned signals received by the (0092 “the TIA may utilize the global feature vectors to stitch together features from multiple points in space or from a single point in space using various image processing techniques (e.g., image stitching, geometric registration, image calibration, image blending). This results in a superset of feature data that has collated global feature vectors from multiple points or a single point in space.”; Abstract “Methods and apparatus for real time machine vision and point-cloud data analysis are provided”); and
determine one or more characteristics of a target object in the environment based on data corresponding to a single point in the point cloud image (0092 “the TIA may utilize the global feature vectors to stitch together features from multiple points in space or from a single point in space using various image processing techniques (e.g., image stitching, geometric registration, image calibration, image blending). This results in a superset of feature data that has collated global feature vectors from multiple points or a single point in space.”; Abstract “Methods and apparatus for real time machine vision and point-cloud data analysis”).
Puttagunta does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Cattleteaches a phased array module configured to transmit a sequence of pulses to an environment according to a pre-determined pattern (fig 2; 0051 “In particular, phased array radars with electronic or mechanical beam scanning can be used to steer a beam through a large aperture to examine a useful field of view”; 0067 “the beam can effectively be scanned in any direction, after the signal has been recorded, thereby allowing for focusing along the spatial dimension. This is known as single-input multiple-output (SIMO) because a single signal or phase-shifted replicas of a single signal) are transmitted, and multiple receive signals are then recorded and processed”).
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 radar system and method of Cattle with the machine vision using a radar system and method of Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar imaging (Cattle 0007). 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, Cattle merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phased array system. Since both Puttagunta and Cattle disclose similar vehicular radar systems, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (US 20160221592 hereinafter Puttagunta) in view of Cattle (US 20190324134) and further in view of Melzer et al. (US 20190113600 hereinafter Melzer) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corretja et al. (US 20170343647 hereinafter Corretja).
Regarding claim 2, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Corretja teaches a wherein the image has two dimensions representing a sample number and a frequency (0033 “applying a time-frequency transform in the recurrence direction on the samples of the transformed temporal sampling map, so as to obtain samples associated with a two-dimensional frequency sampling map”).
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 radar system and method of Corretja with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensitivity (Corretja 0026). 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, Corretja merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the previous combination and Corretja disclose similar radar systems, 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 4, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 3,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Corretja teaches wherein the return characteristic is a measure of signal strength (Corretja 0065 “the computation of the amplitude or squared amplitude of the filtered samples Ef(d, rec) leads to a filtered temporal representation RTF” [characterizing the amplitude corresponds to its signal strength]).
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 radar system and method of Corretja with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensitivity (Corretja 0026). 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, Corretja merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the previous combination and Corretja disclose similar radar systems, 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 6, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 3,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Corretja teaches wherein the representation for the time durations comprises sample numbers (Puttagunta 0005 “Then, as shown in FIG. 1, the resulting digital signal, S(t), depending on the time t, is next sampled using a two-dimensional sampling temporal map. The signal is sampled both using a short time, corresponding to a distance dimension d”; 0005 “A distance sampling interval, or range bin, corresponds to the distance resolution of the radar. Likewise, a recurrence sampling interval, or recurrence bin, corresponds to the angular resolution of the radar”).
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 radar system and method of Corretja with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensitivity (Corretja 0026). 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, Corretja merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the previous combination and Corretja disclose similar radar systems, 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 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (US 20160221592 hereinafter Puttagunta) in view of Cattle (US 20190324134) and further in view of Melzer et al. (US 20190113600 hereinafter Melzer) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sochenet al. (US 20140035776 hereinafter Sochen).
Regarding claim 5, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 3,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Sochen teaches wherein the representations of the plurality of frequencies comprise a frequency index representing a frequency within a frequency range (fig 6g; 0212 “The range R.sub.Tgt and speed V.sub.Tgt of the targets in the experiments that follows are given in terms of the respective time delay index j, and Doppler shift index l”).
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 radar system and method of Sochen with the teachings of Corretja, Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar performance (Sochen 0008). 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, Sochen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the previous combination and Sochen disclose similar radar systems, 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 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 7-9, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (US 20160221592 hereinafter Puttagunta) in view of Cattle (US 20190324134) and further in view of Melzer et al. (US 20190113600 hereinafter Melzer) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGavran al. (US 20200151611 hereinafter McGavran).
Regarding claim 7, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the target object based on the image comprises: providing the image as input to a trained machine learning model (Puttagunta 0041 “FIG. 24 is a schematic block diagram of a map generation system utilizing supervised machine learning.”)
While Puttagunta discloses classifying point cloud data, the combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, McGavran teaches classifiying objects; and receiving, as output from the trained machine learning model, an object classification for the target object (0080 “In some embodiments, the machine-learned models in the machine-learned model library can share certain common properties . . . the ability to classify entities into common categories (e.g., to classify an object as a vehicle or a pedestrian”).
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 machine learning system and method of McGavran with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve machine learning models (McGavran 0079). 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, McGavran merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classifiers. Since both the previous combination and McGavran disclose machine learning systems utilized for 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 8, Puttagunta in view of Cattle, Melzer and McGavran teach The radar system of claim 7, wherein the object classification for the target object represents an object type, an object size, object dimensions, a material type, or a threat level (McGavran 0080 “the ability to determine critical attributes of an entity that can be used to describe the entity (e.g., classifying a vehicle based on the vehicle's size)”).
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 machine learning system and method of McGavran with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta and Melzer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve machine learning models (McGavran 0079). 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, McGavran merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classifiers. Since both the previous combination and McGavran disclose machine learning systems utilized for 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 9, Puttagunta in view of Cattle, Melzer and McGavran teach The radar system of claim 7, wherein the trained machine learning model is trained on a library of object classes (McGavran 0078 “The plurality of machine-learned models in the machine-learned model library can be based in part on a training dataset associated with a plurality of classified object labels and object data comprising information associated with a corresponding plurality of objects”).
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 machine learning system and method of McGavran with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta and Melzer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve machine learning models (McGavran 0079). 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, McGavran merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular classifiers. Since both the previous combination and McGavran disclose machine learning systems utilized for 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 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (US 20160221592 hereinafter Puttagunta) in view of Cattle (US 20190324134) and further in view of Melzer et al. (US 20190113600 hereinafter Melzer) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petilli et al. (US 20200389606 hereinafter Petilli).
Regarding claim 20, Puttagunta in view of Cattle and Melzer teach The radar system of claim 19, wherein constructing the point cloud image based on the returned signals received by the phased array module comprises determining a range (Puttagunta 0078 “Range information from the 3D LIDAR scanner's 3D point cloud dataset may be utilized to identify the elevation of the railway track to also generate a region of interest (spatial & temporal filters) in the global feature vector.”; 0005 “There are three types of sensor systems currently employed in self-driving cars; cameras, LiDAR, and RADA”).
the combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Petilli teaches wherein constructing the point cloud image based on the returned signals received by the phased array module comprises determining a range (claim 15 “a range gate signal generating device; a discriminator responsive to the reflected infrared beams and the range gate signal to generate an array of signals proportional to the time-of-flight (ToF) between a first time when the infrared illumination is provided by the illumination device and a second time when the reflected infrared beams from the one or more objects in the region of interest”).
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 radar system and method of Petilli with the teachings of Cattle and Puttagunta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve imaging (Petilli 0008). 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, Petilli merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the previous combination and Petilli disclose similar processing in 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Statnikov et al. (US 20190353780) discloses “A vehicle-based method of determining the extent to which a target object is a single point scattering center is provided, wherein the vehicle comprises a radar system including at least one radar transmit element adapted to send a radar signal towards the target object (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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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
/William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648