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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submission of various publications dated 3/21/2026 is noted. No accompanying information disclosure statement is present.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 732. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 at line 2 an “infra-structure facility” is introduced, but the claims later reference “the infrastructure facility”. Consistency is required, e.g. removal of the hyphenation.
Also concerning claim 1, a grammatical error is noted at line 3: “detecting road users are detected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s):
“detecting road users are detected by at least one video camera of the sensor system within a first detection area of the sensor system;
detecting the road users by at least one radar device of the sensor system within a second detection area of the radar device, wherein the first detection area and the second detection area at least partially overlap at least one road having a plurality of lanes of the traffic infrastructure facility;
determining a transformation rule for a coordinate transformation of radar data acquired by the radar device and video data acquired by the video camera on the basis of an association of road users detected by the video camera with road users detected by the radar device; and
associating the road users detected according to the radar data of the radar device in a first coordinate system of the radar device and the road users detected according to the video data of the video camera in a second coordinate system of the video camera using the transformation rule.”
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “determining a transformation rule for a coordinate transformation of radar data acquired by the radar device and video data acquired by the video camera on the basis of an association of road users detected by the video camera with road users detected by the radar device; and
associating the road users detected according to the radar data of the radar device in a first coordinate system of the radar device and the road users detected according to the video data of the video camera in a second coordinate system of the video camera using the transformation rule.”
These encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of:
“detecting road users are detected by at least one video camera of the sensor system within a first detection area of the sensor system;” and
“detecting the road users by at least one radar device of the sensor system within a second detection area of the radar device, wherein the first detection area and the second detection area at least partially overlap at least one road having a plurality of lanes of the traffic infrastructure facility”.
It is noted that in context, the “detecting” steps encompass conventional camera and radar data collection. The specification and original claims describe detecting steps “by way of” the camera and radar device, where a controller (720) is said to carry out the method steps, including detections.
These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to perform the recited judicial exception. The steps represent insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The indication that the detection areas overlap at least one road having a plurality of lanes generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and likewise does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Concerning the “video camera” and “radar” specifically, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the steps of “detecting” road users, e.g. acquiring video and radar data of road users on traffic infrastructure lanes is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood routine and conventional activity in the field (e.g. [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Concerning claims 2-10, the claims add steps of identifying, selecting, approximating, and determining, which further detail the abstract idea in the form of mental observations or evaluations. The claims do not introduce any additional elements, therefore claims 2-10 are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 concludes with a step of “associating the road users detected according to the radar data…and the road users detected according to the video data of the video camera…using the transformation rule”. However, the previous step of “determining a transformation rule…” is “on the basis of an association of road users detected by the video camera with road users detected by the radar device”. That is, an association of road users is used to determine the transformation rule, yet it is subsequently claimed to associate the road users using this same rule. The metes and bounds of the concluding “associating” step “using the transformation rule” cannot be determined, as the road users are already “associated” in order to determine the rule per the previous step. Turning to the disclosure for interpretation (Figure 1), the disclosed method concludes with determining the transformation rule (106). The disclosed method also includes a step (104) of associating road users, but this is not “using the transformation rule” as is claimed, rather it is associating which provides basis for the rule determination. Figure 2 discloses the same (212, 214). The intent of the claim is not clear. Is a second “associating” step intended? This is not illustrated as is required, if the intent, nor is the specification found to define what an associating step of already associated road users would encompass. What would the metes and bounds of this “associating” of the road users be, seeing as they have already been associated? Or rather is the claimed “associating” step intended to refer to associating of (104, 212) in agreement with Figures 1 and 2 and inadvertently indicated in the claims as “using” the transformation rule?
The issue extends to claim 4 where the method is claimed to “further” comprise a step of “associating the road users detected by the video camera and the road users detected by the radar device based on the associated lanes”. It is not clear if this “associating”, being a “further” step is intended to “further” detail one of the “associations” introduced in claim 1, or is in fact a “further” (additional) “association”. It is observed that prior to the preliminary amendment, this association appeared to refer back to one which was previously introduced.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because the claim is directed to a "method of controlling a sensor system" but no steps of controlling such a system are found to be present. Rather, the method includes steps of detecting road users performed by components of the sensor system and abstract steps of making a determination and an association, none of which represent "controlling" a sensor system. It is not clear what "control" is required. Per the specification, the disclosed method is carried out by a controller (720) of the sensor system itself. If this is the intent it is suggested that this controller be claimed to implement and/or control as appropriate.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the respective lanes" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously only a plurality of lanes of the traffic infrastructure are identified and it is not clear what “respective” is in reference to. Claims 3-4 and 6-9 are likewise indefinite. Claim 3 also refers to the respective lanes.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the stopping positions ascertained by the video camera and the radar device" in the concluding limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, stopping positions are determined using position information acquired by the camera and radar, but the camera and radar do not ascertain the stopping positions, nor does it appear that this is the intent per the specification.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and are likewise indefinite. All claims are examined with respect to the prior art as best the intent can be understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 2022/0214424).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a method of controlling a sensor system for a traffic infra-structure facility (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
detecting road users are detected by at least one video camera (120) of the sensor system within a first detection area (102) of the sensor system;
detecting the road users by at least one radar device (110) of the sensor system within a second detection area (101) of the radar device, wherein the first detection area and the second detection area at least partially overlap at least one road having a plurality of lanes of the traffic infrastructure facility (illustrated):
determining a transformation rule for a coordinate transformation of radar data acquired by the radar device and video data acquired by the video camera on the basis of an association of road users detected by the video camera with road users detected by the radar device ([0029]-[0031]); and
associating the road users detected according to the radar data of the radar device in a first coordinate system of the radar device and the road users detected according to the video data of the video camera in a second coordinate system of the video camera using the transformation rule ([0167]-[0170]).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Hu discloses acquiring position information cumulatively over time from the road users by way of the video camera and radar device ([0090]) and identifying respective lanes based on the information ([0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses the detecting comprises selecting road users according to movement of road users ([0014]; target tracks of targets over time are fit to straight lines).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swaminathan et al. (US 10,140,855).
Hu is not found to disclose determining a homography matrix between radar detection and camera image planes from a plurality of pairs of points. Swaminathan discloses a similar camera/radar fusion method, including pairing a plurality of points in radar and camera coordinates and determining a homography matrix as claimed (column 8, lines 36-42, column 9, lines 43-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to employ a homography matrix in determining the transformation rule as taught by Swaminathan in order to correct perspective distortion (column 8, lines 56-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A method disclosed in KR 102132303 estimates a stop position of an object using a radar signal, identifies the region to which the stop position belongs, and senses the length of the pixel group formed around the stop position in by way of a thermal imaging camera.
A method disclosed in US 20190120955 includes performing radar signal processing on radar data, camera radar alignment on the radar data, and camera radar fusion on the aligned radar object detection data.
A method disclosed in US 20180259621 performs calibration so that the coordinate system of stereo image and the coordinate system of a radar image are matched with a coordinate system in real space to match a position of the object detected from the stereo image and a position of the object detected from the radar image.
A method disclosed in US 20130151135 employs camera and radar sensors where points corresponding to locations of objects are been selected in each sensor coordinate system and translated or correlated to common coordinates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights