DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 20 May 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 11, and 14; and previously 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 MathWorks - "Introduction to Micro-Doppler Effects"; Mathworks.com website [full URL included in ref.] as captured by the Wayback Machine Internet Archive (archive.org) on 5 Jul 2022 +_+_+
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 MathWorks teaches [1] rotating the object at a first frequency (P1/20: “This example introduces the basic concept of a micro-Doppler effect in the radar return of a target due to the rotation of that target. You can use the micro-Doppler signature to help identify the target.”) so that a radar cross section (RCS) of the object is a sinusoidal curve having peaks based on the known frequency of rotation and geometric symmetry of the object (Fig. P8/20, showing RCS of target with sinusoidal curve peaks based on the rotation frequency and symmetry of the target, P7/20: “The time-frequency representation of micro-Doppler effects can reveal more information. This code constructs a time-frequency representation in the detected target range bin. …The figure shows the micro-Doppler modulation caused by blade tips around a constant Doppler shift. The image suggests that each blade tip introduces a sinusoid-like Doppler modulation. As noted in the figure below, within each period of the sinusoid, there are three extra sinusoids appearing at equal distance. This appearance suggests that the helicopter is equipped with four equally spaced blades.”); processing a sequence of data frames from the sensor using a Fourier Transform to [2] isolate signal peaks based on the known frequency of rotation and geometric symmetry of the object (Fig. P8/20, showing identified isolated signal peaks [using FFTs] corresponding to known frequency of rotating blades: “In addition to the number of blades, the image also shows that the period of each sinusoid, Tr, is about 250 ms. This value means that a blade returns to its original position after 250 ms.”)
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 MathWorks because calibrating with rotating targets allows for testing and calibrating both detection and identification systems.
[**Examiner Note: MathWorks contains the best visuals and most distilled details related to the claims. But Examiner has included in the PTO-892 references cited form two PG/Pubs, Fanuele (patented some 43 years ago) and Fischer, and three NPLs, Qin, Li, and Gong, all teaching this same concept of radar being used not only to detect target locations and speeds, but that for rotating targets, the information can be processed to detect unique features such as corners, number of blades, and frequency of rotation, which reflect known physical and operational features of various aircraft and drones, for example, allowing for identification, detection, and calibration.]
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, Chang 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 (¶50|8: “The exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 4C provides four fiducial markers, i.e., 400-1, 400-2, 400-3, and 400-4, which are distributed in space so that their center points are not all on the same 3D plane.”)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 14, Chang teaches wherein the sensor is a radar sensor and the object is a radar reflector (¶53|10: “To equip the fiducial marker 400 with the ability to calibrate a radar sensor, the present teaching discloses additional means to be incorporated with the fiducial marker 400 to allow a further integrated marker for reflecting radio 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 20 May 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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