DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 6 of the remarks that none of the cited prior art teaches the new limitation of Claim 1, namely that the pseudo-determination unit is configured to “determine that the transmission waves radiated in a direction in which the candidate object is located are reflected from the side surface of the shielding object for a state in which the side surface of the shielding object having the estimated length intersects a straight line connecting the candidate object and the vehicle viewed from above.”
The examiner finds that the primary reference does fully teach the new limitation (see the grounds of rejection below) in at least [0031] and Figures 3 and 4. The examiner further notes that the limitations of Claim 1 do not define a specific structure or method for determining whether rays have been reflected from the side surface of the shielding object, just that the pseudo-determination unit accomplishes this task, and that without further limitation the method described in Shiraishi and referenced on pages 6 and 7 of the remarks is compatible with the Claims as written under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi (JP 2014119285 A) in view of Koyama (JP 6561869 B2) and in view of Longman (US 2021/0104027 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shiraishi teaches an object recognition device, comprising:
a recognition unit configured to radiate transmission waves in a plurality of radiation directions and receive reflected waves of the transmission waves to recognize objects ([0013]: “The radar sensor 21 may be, for example, a millimeter wave radar or a laser radar. The radar sensor 21 detects the position of an object by transmitting electromagnetic waves over a set detection angle range and receiving the electromagnetic waves reflected from the object.”); and
an object determination unit configured to determine whether a candidate object, which is one of the objects recognized by the recognition unit, is a pseudo-object erroneously recognized due to the transmission waves reflected from a side surface of a shielding object, which is present on a near side of the candidate object ([0015]: “The ECU 10 includes a relative angle calculation unit 11 , a pseudo target determination unit 12 , and a driving assistance control unit 13 .”), wherein the object determination unit includes:
a pseudo-determination unit configured to determine whether the candidate object is the pseudo-object ([0017]: “The pseudo target determination unit 12 determines whether or not the first object detected by the radar sensor 21 is a pseudo target candidate due to multipath.”) by using the length of the side surface of the shielding object ([0017]: “The relative angle threshold is preset to a larger value as the length of another vehicle that may be detected as a second object increases”) estimated by the estimation unit, wherein the pseudo-determination unit is configured to:
determine that the transmission waves radiated in a direction in which the candidate object is located are reflected from the side surface of the shielding object ([0007]: “This is based on the phenomenon that when the first object is a pseudo target generated by multipath, the detection direction of the first object is determined by the reflective surface on the side of the second object, which corresponds to a nearby vehicle, etc.”; [0031]: “Based on such a detection result, it is determined whether the first object O1 is a pseudo target candidate due to multipath… the first object O1 is determined to be a pseudo target candidate caused by multipath, in other words, a pseudo target candidate caused by the reflection of electromagnetic waves at the first object O1.; Note that Shiriashi uses ‘multipath’ to refer to electromagnetic waves that have been reflected off of a surface, see [0004]) for a state in which the side surface of the shielding object having the estimated length intersects a straight line connecting the candidate object and the vehicle viewed from above (Figures 3 and 4 show a straight line passing between the candidate object and the side surface of the shielding object vehicle), and
determine that the candidate object is the pseudo-object ([0017]: “The pseudo target determination unit 12 determines whether or not the first object detected by the radar sensor 21 is a pseudo target candidate due to multipath.”), for a state in which it is determined that the transmission waves radiated in a direction in which the candidate object is located are reflected from the side surface of the shielding object ([0031]: “determined to be a pseudo target candidate caused by multipath, in other words, a pseudo target candidate caused by the reflection of electromagnetic waves at the first object”)
Shiraishi does not teach and Koyama does teach a detection unit configured to detect a width of the shielding object ([0002], [0013]);
an estimation unit configured to assume that the shielding object is a vehicle and estimate a length of the side surface of the shielding object based on the width of the shielding object detected by the detection unit ([0036], [0037], [0042]; The measured vehicle width is used in the generation of histogram weights for calculating the estimated width and length);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi with the teaching of Koyama to use the measured width of a vehicle to estimate its length. Koyama notes in [0006] that using the disclosed method, “it is possible to improve the reliability of estimation of the shape of another vehicle.” Given that these estimates are used to direct the motion of the host vehicle, reliability is an essential characteristic.
Shiraishi does not teach and Longman does teach if another object is recognized at a location apart from a reflection point in a reflection direction by the same distance as a distance from the reflection point to the candidate object ([0054]: “The candidate pair should have the same length.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi with the teaching of Longman that the equal distances from the reflection point to the candidate object and from the reflection point to another object indicate the candidate is not a real object. Longman notes in [0033] that “ghost objects may create challenges in vehicle radar systems,” and that previously ghost objects had been considered separately. Longman teaches to track ghost object properties pairwise in order to improve candidate selection and identification.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Shiraishi does not teach and Koyama further teaches wherein the estimation unit is further configured to estimate an orientation of the side surface of the shielding object ([0014]: “The pre-processing unit 2 acquires information about the position and attitude of other vehicles based on the measurement point cloud of the radar 4 .”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the further teaching of Koyama to acquire the attitude or orientation of vehicles into the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman. Knowledge of a vehicle’s orientation is an important component in vehicle navigation applications as it allows for better collision avoidance and vehicle control, which ultimately yields a safer vehicle.
Shiraishi in view of Koyama does not teach and Longman does teach wherein the pseudo-determination unit also determines whether the candidate object is the pseudo-object by using the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object estimated by the estimation unit (Figure 4, [0045]: “In EQ. 1, the line slope, tan(α), is based on the reflection surface angle α, which is the angle between the reflective surface 225 and the direction of travel X of the vehicle 100,” Subsequent paragraphs and equations show that this angle is used to calculate the candidate object distances which are used to determine if an image is a ghost image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Longman to use the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object to aid in pseudo-object determination. A worker with ordinary skill in geometric optics would know that for specular reflection off of smooth surfaces such as guard rails or car window glass, knowledge of the surface angle is essential. Thus, taking into account this information would result in more accurate determinations of candidate object position and therefore better pseudo-object determination.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Shiraishi does not teach and Koyama does teach wherein the detection unit is further configured to detect a longitudinal direction of the side surface of the shielding object, the estimation unit is further configured to estimate the longitudinal direction of the side surface of the shielding object detected by the detection unit to be an orientation of the side surface of the shielding object ([0014]: “The pre-processing unit 2 acquires information about the position and attitude of other vehicles based on the measurement point cloud of the radar 4 .” Here the examiner reasonably takes the longitudinal direction to mean the length of the vehicle in the direction it is oriented, which is equivalent to the position and attitude measured by Koyama; [0036], [0037], [0042], The measured vehicle width and length are used in the generation of histogram weights for calculating the estimated width and length which inherently estimates the longitudinal direction given that the attitude is known as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the further teaching of Koyama to acquire the attitude or orientation of vehicles into the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman. Knowledge of a vehicle’s orientation is an important component in vehicle navigation applications as it allows for better collision avoidance and vehicle control, which ultimately yields a safer vehicle.
Shiraishi in view of Koyama does not teach and Longman does teach wherein the pseudo-determination unit determines whether the candidate object is the pseudo-object by using the length and the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object estimated by the estimation unit (Figure 4, [0045]: “In EQ. 1, the line slope, tan(α), is based on the reflection surface angle α, which is the angle between the reflective surface 225 and the direction of travel X of the vehicle 100,” Subsequent paragraphs and equations show that this angle is used to calculate the candidate object distances which are used to determine if an image is a ghost image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Longman to use the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object to aid in pseudo-object determination. A worker with ordinary skill in geometric optics would know that for specular reflection off of smooth surfaces such as guard rails or car window glass, knowledge of the surface angle is essential. Thus, taking into account this information would result in more accurate determinations of candidate object position and therefore better pseudo-object determination.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Shiriashi does not teach and Koyama does teach wherein the detection unit is further configured to detect a width direction of the shielding object, the estimation unit is further configured to estimate a direction perpendicular to the width direction of the shielding object detected by the detection unit to be an orientation of the side surface of the shielding object ([0014]: “The pre-processing unit 2 acquires information about the position and attitude of other vehicles based on the measurement point cloud of the radar 4 .” [0014]: “The attitude of the other vehicle refers to the angle (θ) between the side of the rectangular frame corresponding to the length of the other vehicle and the X axis of a coordinate system with the position of the vehicle 100 as the origin OR.” Since Koyama takes the frame to be rectangular, the length direction is necessarily perpendicular to the measured width direction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the further teaching of Koyama to acquire the attitude or orientation of vehicles into the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman. Knowledge of a vehicle’s orientation is an important component in vehicle navigation applications as it allows for better collision avoidance and vehicle control, which ultimately yields a safer vehicle.
Shiraishi in view of Koyama does not teach and Longman does teach wherein the pseudo-determination unit determines whether the candidate object is the pseudo-object by using the length and the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object estimated by the estimation unit (Figure 4, [0045]: “In EQ. 1, the line slope, tan(α), is based on the reflection surface angle α, which is the angle between the reflective surface 225 and the direction of travel X of the vehicle 100,” Subsequent paragraphs and equations show that this angle is used to calculate the candidate object distances which are used to determine if an image is a ghost image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Longman to use the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object to aid in pseudo-object determination. A worker with ordinary skill in geometric optics would know that for specular reflection off of smooth surfaces such as guard rails or car window glass, knowledge of the surface angle is essential. Thus, taking into account this information would result in more accurate determinations of candidate object position and therefore better pseudo-object determination.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Shiraishi does not teach and Koyama further teaches wherein the detection unit is further configured to detect a length of the side surface of the shielding object ([0036], [0037], [0042]; The measured vehicle length is also used in the generation of histogram weights for calculating the estimated width and length. As in Claim 1 above, the pseudo-determination unit uses the estimated side length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Koyama to measure the vehicle length. One skilled in the arts would know that under some conditions, a measured value may be more reliable than or equivalent to an estimated value, and that in such a case, it is more efficient to simply use the measured value rather than performing a potentially complex computation or estimation to retrieve an estimated value.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashiro (JP 2012052838 A).
wherein the estimation unit is further configured to estimate a moving direction of the shielding object to be an orientation of the side surface of the shielding object ([0025]: “Next, the orientation of the target object is estimated from the motion vectors of the endpoints detected in one frame”, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Yamashiro to estimate the vehicle orientation based on the direction of motion. A worker skilled in the art would know that in all circumstance considered to be normal driving, a vehicle’s direction of motion and orientation are identical, and would therefore find using the direction of motion as the orientation to be predictable. Knowledge of a vehicle’s orientation is an important component in vehicle navigation applications as it allows for better collision avoidance and vehicle control, which ultimately yields a safer vehicle.
Shiraishi in view of Koyama does not teach and Longman does teach wherein the pseudo-determination unit determines whether the candidate object is the pseudo-object by using the length and the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object estimated by the estimation unit (Figure 4, [0045]: “In EQ. 1, the line slope, tan(α), is based on the reflection surface angle α, which is the angle between the reflective surface 225 and the direction of travel X of the vehicle 100,” Subsequent paragraphs and equations show that this angle is used to calculate the candidate object distances which are used to determine if an image is a ghost image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shiraishi in view of Koyama and further in view of Longman with the further teaching of Longman to use the orientation of the side surface of the shielding object to aid in pseudo-object determination. A worker with ordinary skill in geometric optics would know that for specular reflection off of smooth surfaces such as guard rails or car window glass, knowledge of the surface angle is essential. Thus, taking into account this information would result in more accurate determinations of candidate object position and therefore better pseudo-object determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasu (EP 3299841 A1) discloses a method for analyzing multipath reflection signals from intervening vehicles.
Tamatsu (US 2003/0179129 A1) discloses an object recognition apparatus that removes virtual images without detecting a roadside object.
Kitano (JP 5320880 B2) discloses a distance measurement unit which calculates distances between objects and a reflection point, and judges whether or not specular reflection is occurring.
Olshansky (US 2017/0261602 A1) discloses a system for analyzing radar signals which uses the information to correct or remedy ghost targets.
Orlowski (US 2019/0004166 A1) discloses a method to determine the heading or orientation of a target vehicle by a host vehicle.
Tokoro (US 6,323,802 B1) discloses a radar apparatus for use on a vehicle which has a ghost determination device for determining whether a detected object image created is a ghost.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645