DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 21 Apr 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 11, and 14; and cancelled Claims 2-5, 15-16, and 18. The Office rejects pending Claims 1, 6-14, 17, and 19-20 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
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, 6-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang - U.S. Pub. 20210318448 - and Hellinger et al. - U.S. Pub. 20170212215 - in view of Smothermon et al. - U.S. Pub. 20200355826 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Chang teaches determining a location of a localization sensor on the vehicle, the localization sensor on the vehicle spaced from the radar sensor on the vehicle (¶3|16: “Other sensors such as a LiDAR or a radar on the same vehicle is to gather information related to depth of all what is around the vehicle. A GPS on a vehicle is for providing geolocation information related to the vehicle.”); determining a location of an object located within a field of view of the radar sensor using a localization device on the object; determining a position of the object relative to the localization sensor on the vehicle using the location of the localization sensor and the location of the object (¶9|4: “A first GPS signal is received by a GPS receiver residing in an ego vehicle [i.e., the reference vehicle with sensors to be calibrated] and is used to determine a first geo-position of the ego vehicle. A GPS related signal transmitted by a fiducial marker is received and is used to obtain a second geo-position of the fiducial marker [i.e., target]. A distance between the ego vehicle and the fiducial marker is determined based on the first and second geo-positions and is used to determine whether to initiate calibration of one or more sensors using the fiducial marker. ”)[1…]; determining an apparent location of the object relative to the radar sensor on the vehicle [2…]; determining an offset in position between the localization sensor on the vehicle and the radar sensor on the vehicle using the position of the object relative to the localization sensor and the apparent location of the object relative to the radar sensor and calculating a spatial coordinate difference between first coordinates of the object derived from the localization sensor on the vehicle and second coordinates of the object [2…]; and storing the offset to adjust future detected apparent locations of objects (¶42|1: “The integrated fiducial marker according to the present teaching may also incorporate a GPS device with a receiver and a transmitter which sends out the geospatial pose information of the marker. Such transmitted GPS information enables a vehicle to determine a distance between the vehicle and the integrated fiducial marker. Such determined distance may then be used to by the vehicle to automatically initiate a calibration session. This makes it possible for a vehicle to conduct calibration when within a certain distance from available fiducial markers in order to dynamically update the calibration parameters of sensors deployed on the vehicle as well as the transformation matrices for different pairs of sensors.”) Chang does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations including using a rotating target or detecting signal peaks from a rotating target.
But Hellinger teaches [1] rotating the object at a known frequency (¶36|1: “In another embodiment, the targets 41-43 are target simulators. The target simulators generally are simulating targets with adjustable speed and distance. In one embodiment, the targets are a fan type of arrangement, wherein fan blades rotate to provide unique return radar waves for different return radar waves to the radar sensor unit 12 that are unique by simulating a velocity or a distance to the reflected signal. Thus, the location of the simulators is easily detected by the radar sensor unit 12. In one embodiment, the simulators are all disposed the same distance from the radar sensor unit 12. The simulators operate at different speeds to provide distinct differences for the reflector radar waves.”)
It 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 to combine Chang and Hellinger because using a spinning target provides a simpler means to calibrate a radar sensor at multiple frequencies.
Chang and Hellinger teach calibrating a radar using a target rotating at a known frequency, but do not detail the process by which the signals are processed.
But Smothermon teaches [2] processing a sequence of radar data frames from the radar sensor using a Fourier Transform to isolate signal peaks corresponding to the known frequency of rotation of the object (¶30|1: “Assume there are N frames of time series data representing the flight of the spinning projectile. Each frame is converted to the frequency domain via FFT.” Further, (¶35|1) “Peak detection system 306 receives FFT data and other suitable data, and identifies one or more peaks in the FFT data. In one example embodiment, the FFT data can include noise or other signal components that are not correlated to the reflected signal, and peak detection system 306 can exclude such signal components from the identified peaks, such as by analog pre filtering or digital filtering, by trend analysis or by other suitable signal processing techniques. Peak detection system 306 can operate under algorithmic control of projectile spin detection system 102, and can transmit peak detection data to shoulder detection system 308, projectile RPM system 312 or other suitable systems. “)
It 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 to combine Chang and Hellinger with Smothermon because converting signals to frequency space to isolate and detect peaks is the primary means of function for most radar systems.
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Chang teaches wherein sensor and the object is a radar reflector, and further comprising: location of the mounting the radar sensor and a lidar sensor on the vehicle; mounting a lidar reflector on the radar reflector; detecting an apparent location of the lidar reflector with the lidar sensor; and using the apparent location of the lidar reflector to modify the apparent location of the object (¶49|1: “The center point 470 serves as a feature point on the fiducial marker 400 that can be recognized or identified by different sensors. As all sensors can recognize the same point (the center point 470), their respective measurements are comparable. Based on the construction of the fiducial marker 400, as each of the frontal surfaces is of a different color or texture, the center point 470 may be visually identified from an image of the marker by locating the intersection of different color patches. With respect to a depth based sensor such as a LiDAR, the center point 470 may be identified by analyzing the scanned depth values of the marker and finding a singular (local minimum) depth value in the depth map.”)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Chang teaches wherein the object is a radar reflector, and further comprising: location of the mounting the radar sensor and a camera sensor on the vehicle; mounting a camera target proximate the radar reflector; detecting an apparent location of the camera target with the camera sensor; and using the apparent location of the camera target to modify the apparent location of the object (¶49|1: “The center point 470 serves as a feature point on the fiducial marker 400 that can be recognized or identified by different sensors. As all sensors can recognize the same point (the center point 470), their respective measurements are comparable. Based on the construction of the fiducial marker 400, as each of the frontal surfaces is of a different color or texture, the center point 470 may be visually identified from an image of the marker by locating the intersection of different color patches. With respect to a depth based sensor such as a LiDAR, the center point 470 may be identified by analyzing the scanned depth values of the marker and finding a singular (local minimum) depth value in the depth map.”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 1, Chang teaches wherein the object is part of a calibration system and the radar sensor is mounted on the vehicle (¶3|16: “Other sensors such as a LiDAR or a radar on the same vehicle is to gather information related to depth of all what is around the vehicle. A GPS on a vehicle is for providing geolocation information related to the vehicle.”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 1, Chang teaches wherein the localization sensor is a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device (¶61|6: “The GPS signal receiver 720 is to receive GPS signals from, e.g., a satellite, on information which can be used to determine the geolocation [i.e., GPS/GNNS] of the marker.”)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 1, Hellinger teaches further comprising repeating the steps of claim 1 at multiple different locations of the object within the field of view of the radar sensor and determining multiple offsets for each of the multiple different locations (¶35|4: “The comer reflectors typically have three reflective surfaces oriented in different directions. When multiple comer reflectors are utilized, typically one or more are disposed at a different distance from the radar sensor unit 12 as shown relative to the z-axis in FIG. 2.”)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 14, Hellinger teaches wherein the sensor is a radar sensor and the object is a radar reflector (¶36|8: “Thus, the location of the simulators is easily detected by the radar sensor unit 12. In one embodiment, the simulators are all disposed the same distance from the radar sensor unit 12. The simulators operate at different speeds to provide distinct differences for the reflector radar waves.”)
Claims 11-13 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1 and 9-10, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claims 14 and 19 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1 and 9, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
As for Claim 20, which depends on Claim 14, Chang teaches receiving lidar image data from a lidar sensor mounted on the vehicle; detecting an apparent location of a lidar reflector on the object from the lidar image data (¶49|1: “The center point 470 serves as a feature point on the fiducial marker 400 that can be recognized or identified by different sensors. As all sensors can recognize the same point (the center point 470), their respective measurements are comparable. Based on the construction of the fiducial marker 400, as each of the frontal surfaces is of a different color or texture, the center point 470 may be visually identified from an image of the marker by locating the intersection of different color patches. With respect to a depth based sensor such as a LiDAR, the center point 470 may be identified by analyzing the scanned depth values of the marker and finding a singular (local minimum) depth value in the depth map.”); and using the apparent location of the lidar reflector to modify the apparent location of the object (¶42|1: “The integrated fiducial marker according to the present teaching may also incorporate a GPS device with a receiver and a transmitter which sends out the geospatial pose information of the marker. Such transmitted GPS information enables a vehicle to determine a distance between the vehicle and the integrated fiducial marker. Such determined distance may then be used to by the vehicle to automatically initiate a calibration session. This makes it possible for a vehicle to conduct calibration when within a certain distance from available fiducial markers in order to dynamically update the calibration parameters of sensors deployed on the vehicle as well as the transformation matrices for different pairs of sensors.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 Apr 2026 relate to newly amended claims and are not addressed in this section; the rejections above, however, address the latest version of the claims in detail.
Conclusion
Applicants should direct any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications to CLINT THATCHER at phone 571.270.3588. Examiner is normally available Mon-Fri, 9am to 5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights