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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 20 January, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 10 December, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 10 December, 2025 with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 11, 17, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “an environment” which is suggested to be amended to “[[an]]the environment” to properly refer to previously recited feature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, and 20 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 3 recites “the moving vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the moving vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “a field-of-view” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if this feature refers to the same or different “field-of-view” as previously recited in claim 1 which claim 9 depends on. Additionally, claim 9 recites “a velocity value” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if this feature refers to the same or different “velocity value” as previously recited in claim 1 which claim 9 depends on.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “the moving vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “the moving vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites “the moving vehicle” which lacks antecedent basis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 5-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2019/0369222 A1 “OH”), in view of Venkatachalam et al. (US 2009/0224965 A1 “VENKATACHALAM”), and further in view of Poiger et al. (US 2019/0204435 A1 “POIGER”).
Regarding claim 1, OH discloses (Examiner’s note: What OH does not explicitly disclose is ) a system for estimating an ego-motion of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a first radar transceiver unit to be positioned on or within the vehicle (a radar 40 disposed near the front end of vehicle 10 [0018]), the first radar transceiver unit transmit a first signal and receive a first echo signal in response to the transmitted first signal (radar 40 may emit its radiated electromagnetic power in a surrounding environment [0018]); (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars disposed in or on a vehicle as the vehicle is traversing a surrounding environment [0048])
a second radar transceiver unit to be positioned on or within the vehicle (one or more radar devices [0017]); (vehicle 10 may be equipped with N radars, and there may be objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle 10 to be detected by each of the N radars [0027]), the second radar transceiver unit to transmit a second signal and receive a second echo signal in response to the transmitted second signal, wherein the first signal and the second signal are reflected by an environment of the vehicle (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars disposed in or on a vehicle as the vehicle is traversing a surrounding environment [0048])
and a processor coupled to both the first and second radar transceiver units (processor 710 may be communicatively coupled to radars 740(1)-740(N), as well as to memory 720 [0060]), the processor to:
receive data representing both the first and second echo signals (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars [0048])
to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [0031])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VENKATACHALAM relates to a method that includes propagating a radar signal to the region of interest and collecting sampled time domain radar data scattered within the region of interest. Specifically, VENKATACHALAM teaches that U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [0036]. The spatial sampling interval is 1 km on both x-axis and y-axis. The temporal sampling interval is 5 minutes whereas each image is projected onto regular points on time axis [0052]. VENKATACHALAM further teaches a plurality of four radars [0027].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of VENKATACHALAM, because doing so would allow the estimated motion field to be globally constructed over the whole spatial region where radar images are rendered, as recognized by VENKATACHALAM. In addition, both of the prior art references, OH and VENKATACHALAM, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radar system for motion analysis.
OH/ VENKATACHALAM discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose to cause the first radar transceiver unit and the second radar transceiver unit to perform simultaneous scans of overlapping fields-of-view, and, within a single measurement frame, determine the respective components (U, V) at each respective location using changes in phase information of the first and second echo signals corresponding to that location.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, POIGER relates to a vehicle radar system and method including a first and second radar sensor arrangement. Specifically, POIGER teaches that the vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b. With reference also to FIG. 2, the radar sensor arrangements 4a, 4b are arranged to distinguish and/or resolve single targets from the surroundings by transmitting signals 6a, 6b and receiving reflected signals 7a, 7b and using a Doppler effect. The vehicle radar system 3 is arranged to provide azimuth angles of possible target objects 5 by simultaneously sampling and analyzing phase and amplitude of the received signals 7a, 7b [0035]. The vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b, where each radar sensor arrangement 7a, 7b is arranged for generating and transmitting sweep signals in the form of FMCW (Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave) chirp signals 6a, 6b [0037]. Furthermore, POIGER teaches that the combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. This works best with capturing raw data from both sensors simultaneously and then computing the data [0054]. The radial velocity can be determined by a Doppler frequency or the radial distance change versus time [0073].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of POIGER, because doing so would improve the quality of the combined radar image and provide an adequate coverage, as recognized by POIGER. In addition, both of the prior art references, OH and POIGER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, obstacle detection and analysis.
Regarding claim 2, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the velocity vectors are determined at a number of points in the field-of-view of both the first and second radar transceiver units (the spatial sampling interval is 1 km on both x-axis and y-axis. The temporal sampling interval is 5 minutes whereas each image is projected onto regular points on time axis [VENKATACHALAM 0052], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, wherein suppressing the contribution to the estimate corresponding to the at least one target moving with respect to the fixed frame of reference includes: eliminating or down-weighting data representing information about the at least one moving target before or during the estimation of the at least one of the velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the moving vehicle (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, the processor to: suppress a velocity vector component that falls below or above a specified criterion (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (other representative points of FIG. 3, which are farther away from the best-fit plane 320, are referred as “outliers”. The outliers are deemed by the RANSAC algorithm as representing measurement data from moving objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle 10. In contrast to the inliers, the outliers are excluded from being used to construct or otherwise form the least squares problem represented by equation (17) [OH 0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 6, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, the processor to determine two-dimensional motion parameters of the vehicle (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, the processor to transmit the at least one of the velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the vehicle to another system of the vehicle (process 500 may proceed from 540 to perform further estimations, calculations, applications or post-processing of data. For example, process 500 may proceed from 540 to 550 to maneuver the vehicle, or proceed from 540 to 560 to identify and track the moving objects. The processor may control, adjust, calibrate or navigate the vehicle, sometimes through an autonomous driving controller equipped in the vehicle, based on the linear velocities, angular velocities and/or the sideslip angle obtained at 540 [OH 0053-0054]). It is further noted that it is implicit that the velocity value is transmitted to another system of the vehicle so that the velocity value could be used for further processing, as disclosed by OH.
Regarding claim 8, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first radar transceiver unit and the second radar transceiver unit are frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar transceiver units (the vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b, where each radar sensor arrangement 7a, 7b is arranged for generating and transmitting sweep signals in the form of FMCW (Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave) chirp signals 6a, 6b [POIGER 0037], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a third radar transceiver unit to be positioned on or within the vehicle, the third radar transceiver unit transmit a third signal and receive a third echo signal in response to transmitted third signal, wherein the third signal is reflected by an environment of the vehicle, wherein the processor is further coupled to the third radar transceiver unit (apparatus 700 may include one or more radar devices, such as radars 740(1), 740(2) …, and 740(N) as shown in FIG. 7 [OH 0060]), the processor further to: receive data representing the third echo signal; using the data representing third echo signal, determine the respective components corresponding to the velocity vectors at the respective locations in the coordinate system defined by a field-of-view (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); and using the determined velocity vectors, estimate the at least one of a velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the vehicle (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1), including suppressing the contribution to the estimate corresponding to at least one target moving with respect to the fixed frame (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 9, the processor to determine three-dimensional motion parameters of the vehicle (for the 3D embodiment of radar odometry, equations similar to equations (1)-(21) for 2D embodiment of radar odometry may be derived, and a RANSAC process similar to process 400 of FIG. 4 may be employed, thereby resulting in accurate estimates of linear and angular velocities of the vehicle traversing the 3D space, such as longitudinal velocity 51, lateral velocity 52, vertical velocity 53, roll rate 54, pitch rate 55 and yaw rate 56 of vehicle 50 as shown in FIG. 1 [OH 0047]).
Regarding claim 11, OH discloses a method for estimating an ego-motion of a vehicle, the method comprising:
transmitting, using a first radar transceiver unit (a radar 40 disposed near the front end of vehicle 10 [0018]), a first signal and receiving a first echo signal in response to the transmitted first signal (radar 40 may emit its radiated electromagnetic power in a surrounding environment [0018]); (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars disposed in or on a vehicle as the vehicle is traversing a surrounding environment [0048])
transmitting, using a second radar transceiver unit, a second signal and receiving a second echo signal in response to the transmitted second signal (one or more radar devices [0017]); (vehicle 10 may be equipped with N radars, and there may be objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle 10 to be detected by each of the N radars [0027]), wherein the first signal and the second signal are reflected by an environment of the vehicle (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars disposed in or on a vehicle as the vehicle is traversing a surrounding environment [0048])
and using a processor coupled to both the first and second radar transceiver units (processor 710 may be communicatively coupled to radars 740(1)-740(N), as well as to memory 720 [0060]):
receiving data representing both the first and second echo signals (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars [0048])
to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [0031])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VENKATACHALAM teaches that U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [0036]. VENKATACHALAM further teaches a plurality of four radars [0027].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of VENKATACHALAM, because doing so would allow the estimated motion field to be globally constructed over the whole spatial region where radar images are rendered, as recognized by VENKATACHALAM.
OH/ VENKATACHALAM discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose performing, using the first radar transceiver unit and the second radar transceiver unit, simultaneous scans of overlapping fields-of-view, and, within a single measurement frame, determining the respective components (U, V) at each respective location using changes in phase information of the first and second echo signals corresponding to that location.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, POIGER teaches that the vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b. With reference also to FIG. 2, the radar sensor arrangements 4a, 4b are arranged to distinguish and/or resolve single targets from the surroundings by transmitting signals 6a, 6b and receiving reflected signals 7a, 7b and using a Doppler effect. The vehicle radar system 3 is arranged to provide azimuth angles of possible target objects 5 by simultaneously sampling and analyzing phase and amplitude of the received signals 7a, 7b [0035]. The vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b, where each radar sensor arrangement 7a, 7b is arranged for generating and transmitting sweep signals in the form of FMCW (Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave) chirp signals 6a, 6b [0037]. Furthermore, POIGER teaches that the combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. This works best with capturing raw data from both sensors simultaneously and then computing the data [0054]. The radial velocity can be determined by a Doppler frequency or the radial distance change versus time [0073].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of POIGER, because doing so would improve the quality of the combined radar image and provide an adequate coverage, as recognized by POIGER.
Regarding claim 12, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the method of claim 11, wherein suppressing the contribution to the estimate corresponding to the at least one target moving with respect to the fixed frame includes: eliminating or down-weighting data representing information about the at least one moving target before or during the estimation of the at least one of the velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the moving vehicle (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the method of claim 11, comprising: suppressing a velocity vector component that falls below or above a specified criterion (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11); (other representative points of FIG. 3, which are farther away from the best-fit plane 320, are referred as “outliers”. The outliers are deemed by the RANSAC algorithm as representing measurement data from moving objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle 10. In contrast to the inliers, the outliers are excluded from being used to construct or otherwise form the least squares problem represented by equation (17) [OH 0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 15, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the method of claim 11, comprising: determining two-dimensional motion parameters of the vehicle (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the method of claim 11, comprising: transmitting the at least one of the velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the vehicle to another system of the vehicle (process 500 may proceed from 540 to perform further estimations, calculations, applications or post-processing of data. For example, process 500 may proceed from 540 to 550 to maneuver the vehicle, or proceed from 540 to 560 to identify and track the moving objects. The processor may control, adjust, calibrate or navigate the vehicle, sometimes through an autonomous driving controller equipped in the vehicle, based on the linear velocities, angular velocities and/or the sideslip angle obtained at 540 [OH 0053-0054]). It is further noted that it is implicit that the velocity value is transmitted to another system of the vehicle so that the velocity value could be used for further processing, as disclosed by OH.
Regarding claim 17, OH discloses a system for estimating a self-motion of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a first a radar 40 disposed near the front end of vehicle 10 [0018]), the first radar transceiver unit to transmit a first signal and receive a first echo signal in response to the transmitted first signal (radar 40 may emit its radiated electromagnetic power in a surrounding environment [0018]); (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars disposed in or on a vehicle as the vehicle is traversing a surrounding environment [0048])
a second one or more radar devices [0017]); (vehicle 10 may be equipped with N radars, and there may be objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle 10 to be detected by each of the N radars [0027])
a third apparatus 700 may include one or more radar devices, such as radars 740(1), 740(2) …, and 740(N) as shown in FIG. 7 [0060])
and a processor coupled to each of the first FMCW radar transceiver unit, the second FMCW radar transceiver unit, processor 710 may be communicatively coupled to radars 740(1)-740(N), as well as to memory 720 [0060]), the processor to:
receive data representing the first echo signal, the second echo signal, and the third echo signal (receiving measurement data of stationary and/or moving objects as detected or measured by one or more radars [0048])
including suppressing a contribution to the estimate corresponding to the at least one target moving with respect to a fixed frame of reference (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [0031])
Furthermore, OH discloses that preferably, Doppler radars are used for their higher measurement accuracy as compared to other types of automotive radars [0017].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VENKATACHALAM teaches that U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [0036]. VENKATACHALAM further teaches a plurality of four radars [0027].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of VENKATACHALAM, because doing so would allow the estimated motion field to be globally constructed over the whole spatial region where radar images are rendered, as recognized by VENKATACHALAM.
OH/ VENKATACHALAM discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose FMCW radars, and to cause the first radar transceiver unit and the second radar transceiver unit to perform simultaneous scans of overlapping fields-of-view, and, within a single measurement frame, determine the respective components (U, V) at each respective location using changes in phase information of the first and second echo signals corresponding to that location.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, POIGER teaches that the vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b. With reference also to FIG. 2, the radar sensor arrangements 4a, 4b are arranged to distinguish and/or resolve single targets from the surroundings by transmitting signals 6a, 6b and receiving reflected signals 7a, 7b and using a Doppler effect. The vehicle radar system 3 is arranged to provide azimuth angles of possible target objects 5 by simultaneously sampling and analyzing phase and amplitude of the received signals 7a, 7b [0035]. The vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b, where each radar sensor arrangement 7a, 7b is arranged for generating and transmitting sweep signals in the form of FMCW (Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave) chirp signals 6a, 6b [0037]. Furthermore, POIGER teaches that the combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. This works best with capturing raw data from both sensors simultaneously and then computing the data [0054]. The radial velocity can be determined by a Doppler frequency or the radial distance change versus time [0073].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of POIGER, because doing so would improve the quality of the combined radar image and provide an adequate coverage, as recognized by POIGER.
Regarding claim 18, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 17, the processor to determine three-dimensional (3D) motion parameters of the vehicle (for the 3D embodiment of radar odometry, equations similar to equations (1)-(21) for 2D embodiment of radar odometry may be derived, and a RANSAC process similar to process 400 of FIG. 4 may be employed, thereby resulting in accurate estimates of linear and angular velocities of the vehicle traversing the 3D space, such as longitudinal velocity 51, lateral velocity 52, vertical velocity 53, roll rate 54, pitch rate 55 and yaw rate 56 of vehicle 50 as shown in FIG. 1 [OH 0047]).
Regarding claim 19, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the 3D motion parameters include yaw rate, pitch rate, and roll rate (for the 3D embodiment of radar odometry, equations similar to equations (1)-(21) for 2D embodiment of radar odometry may be derived, and a RANSAC process similar to process 400 of FIG. 4 may be employed, thereby resulting in accurate estimates of linear and angular velocities of the vehicle traversing the 3D space, such as longitudinal velocity 51, lateral velocity 52, vertical velocity 53, roll rate 54, pitch rate 55 and yaw rate 56 of vehicle 50 as shown in FIG. 1 [OH 0047]).
Regarding claim 20, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 17, wherein suppressing the contribution to the estimate corresponding to the at least one target moving with respect to the fixed frame includes: eliminating or down-weighting data representing information about the at least one moving target before or during the estimation of the at least one of the velocity value, the velocity vector, or the angular rate of the moving vehicle (to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [OH 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 17).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH, in view of VENKATACHALAM and POIGER, and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0371228 A1 “WANG”).
Regarding claim 4, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the system of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WANG relates to sensors, including radar sensors, may be used to detect objects in an environment. Specifically, WANG teaches that the historical information may be used to extrapolate or estimate radar data captured at different times to a common time [0013]. Additionally, WANG teaches that RANSAC logic can be used to remove outliers when solving Equation (1) simultaneously for all measured returns [0086].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of WANG, because doing so would improve collected sensor data and increase system efficiency, as recognized by WANG. In addition, both of the prior art references, OH and WANG, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, obstacle detection.
Regarding claim 13, OH/ VENKATACHALAM/ POIGER discloses the method of claim 11,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WANG teaches that the historical information may be used to extrapolate or estimate radar data captured at different times to a common time [0013]. Additionally, WANG teaches that RANSAC logic can be used to remove outliers when solving Equation (1) simultaneously for all measured returns [0086].
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 system of OH to include the teachings of WANG, because doing so would improve collected sensor data and increase system efficiency, as recognized by WANG.
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POIGER, in view of VENKATACHALAM.
Regarding claim 21, POIGER discloses a system for estimating an ego-motion of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a first radar transceiver unit to be positioned on or within the vehicle (the radar system may be implemented in any type of vehicle such as cars, trucks and buses as well as boats and aircraft [0082]), the first radar transceiver unit transmit a first signal and receive a first echo signal in response to the transmitted first signal (there may be any number of transmitter antenna devices 10a1, 10a2 and receiver antenna devices 13a1, 13a2, 13a3, 13a4, but there is at least two transmitter antenna devices for each transmitter antenna arrangement 10a, 10b and at least two receiver antenna devices for each receiver antenna arrangement 13a, 13b [0080])
a second radar transceiver unit to be positioned on or within the vehicle, the second radar transceiver unit to transmit a second signal and receive a second echo signal in response to the transmitted second signal, wherein the first signal and the second signal are reflected by an environment of the vehicle (there may be any number of transmitter antenna devices 10a1, 10a2 and receiver antenna devices 13a1, 13a2, 13a3, 13a4, but there is at least two transmitter antenna devices for each transmitter antenna arrangement 10a, 10b and at least two receiver antenna devices for each receiver antenna arrangement 13a, 13b [0080])
and a processor coupled to both the first and second radar transceiver units (each radar sensor arrangement 4a, 4b further includes a DSP (Digital Signal Processor) arrangement 18a, 18b that is adapted for radar signal processing [0044]), the processor to:
receive data representing both the first and second echo signals
and cause the first radar transceiver unit and the second radar transceiver unit to perform simultaneous scans of overlapping fields-of-view, and, within a single measurement frame, the vehicle radar system 3 includes a first radar sensor arrangement 4a and a second radar sensor arrangement 4b. With reference also to FIG. 2, the radar sensor arrangements 4a, 4b are arranged to distinguish and/or resolve single targets from the surroundings by transmitting signals 6a, 6b and receiving reflected signals 7a, 7b and using a Doppler effect. The vehicle radar system 3 is arranged to provide azimuth angles of possible target objects 5 by simultaneously sampling and analyzing phase and amplitude of the received signals 7a, 7b [0035]); (the combination of the two antenna radiation patterns 47a, 47b provides an overlap that enables overlap processing of the radars. This works best with capturing raw data from both sensors simultaneously and then computing the data [0054]); (the radial velocity can be determined by a Doppler frequency or the radial distance change versus time [0073])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VENKATACHALAM teaches that U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [0036]. The spatial sampling interval is 1 km on both x-axis and y-axis. The temporal sampling interval is 5 minutes whereas each image is projected onto regular points on time axis [0052]. VENKATACHALAM further teaches a plurality of four radars [0027].
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 system of POIGER to include the teachings of VENKATACHALAM, because doing so would allow the estimated motion field to be globally constructed over the whole spatial region where radar images are rendered, as recognized by VENKATACHALAM.
Regarding claim 24, POIGER/ VENKATACHALAM/ OH discloses the system of claim 21, the processor to determine the points based on a motion of the vehicle (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036]. The spatial sampling interval is 1 km on both x-axis and y-axis. The temporal sampling interval is 5 minutes whereas each image is projected onto regular points on time axis [VENKATACHALAM 0052], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 21).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POIGER, in view of VENKATACHALAM, and further in view of OH.
Regarding claim 22, POIGER/ VENKATACHALAM discloses the system of claim 21, the processor to estimate at least one of a velocity value, a velocity vector, or an angular rate of the vehicle (U(x, y) is the x-axis motion velocity and V(x, y) is the y-axis motion velocity over the spatial domain [VENKATACHALAM 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 21),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, OH teaches to eliminate most, if not all, of the unwanted measurement data that comes from moving objects, a data filtering algorithm or selection process may be employed [0031].
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 system of POIGER to include the teachings of OH, because doing so would improve measurement data in a dynamic environment including both stationary and moving objects, as recognized by OH. In addition, both of the prior art references, POIGER and OH, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, obstacle detection and analysis.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POIGER, in view of VENKATACHALAM, and further in view of Templeton et al. (US 2016/0274589 A1 “TEMPLETON”).
Regarding claim 23, POIGER/ VENKATACHALAM discloses the system of claim 21,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TEMPLETON teaches that the spatial resolution of a LIDAR-generated 3-D point map depends on the physical separation between points, which is a function of both the distance to the points and the angular separation between the points, with respect to the LIDAR. For example, smaller angular separation between measured points provides higher spatial resolution for a given distance, and vice versa. Similarly, smaller distances result in higher spatial resolution for a given angular separation, and vice versa. The angular separation between points is sometimes referred to as the “density” of points, whereby higher density generally corresponds to higher spatial resolution, and vice versa [0041].
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 system of POIGER to include the teachings of TEMPLETON, because doing so would improve scanning of system’s surroundings and enhance resolution as needed, as recognized by TEMPLETON. In addition, both of the prior art references, POIGER and TEMPLETON, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, obstacle detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobrev et al. (US 2019/0107614 A1) discloses a radar method for determining the angular position, the location, and/or the velocity, in particular the vectorial velocity, of a target, wherein a first transceiver unit and at least one second transceiver unit, which is spatially separated in particular from the first transceiver unit, are not synchronized, but a measurement beginning of the first transceiver unit and the second transceiver unit is triggered in a wireless or wired manner with a chronological deviation, wherein measurements of the transceiver units are coherently processed.
Cieslar et al. (US 2018/0356517 A1) discloses sensor velocity vector defined as sensor longitudinal velocity and sensor lateral velocity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 J KELLEHER can be reached at (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 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 6, 2026