DETAILED ACTION
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on January 16, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. January 16, 2026 set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Applicant’s submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
No claims are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending this application.
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 1-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 4,335,382 A) in view of Shelton (US 6,023,236 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown discloses a method for calibrating a patrol vehicle speed, comprising [col 3, lines 10-25 with col 5, lines 45-60]:
initiating a calibration cycle at a speed detection radar unit mounted in a vehicle [col 3, lines 30-45 for instrument element 10, col 5, lines 45-66];
operating the vehicle to generate a vehicle speed signal using the speed detection radar unit [col 3, lines 45-60, and col 4, lines 1-10];
and exiting the calibration cycle if the vehicle speed signal matches an observed speed from a source signal [col 6, lines 1-15 and col 8, lines 25-50].
Brown fails to explicitly teach an independent source signal.
Shelton has A digital signal processor traffic radar utilizing pulses from the patrol vehicle's electronic speedometer (abstract) and teaches an independent source signal [col 3, lines 1-10 for speedometer pulses, and col 3, lines 40-60].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Brown, further including the signals environment as taught by Shelton for the purpose to find the patrol speed (Shelton, col 3, lines 40-60).
Regarding Claim 2 Brown teaches initiating the calibration cycle comprises automatically initiating the calibration cycle [col 6, lines 55-70].
Regarding Claim 3 Brown teaches initiating the calibration cycle comprises manually initiating the calibration cycle [col 6, lines 55-70].
Regarding Claim 4, Brown discloses operating the vehicle to generate the vehicle speed signal using the speed detection radar unit comprises driving the vehicle for a predetermined period of time [col 6, lines 55-70 for timed intervals (period of time)].
Regarding Claim 6 Brown teaches exiting the calibration cycle if the vehicle speed signal matches the observed speed from the independent source signal comprises automatically determining whether the vehicle speed signal matches the observed speed from the independent source signal that is external to the vehicle [col 6, lines 1-20 and col 8, lines 25-50].
Regarding Claim 7 Brown teaches exiting the calibration cycle if the vehicle speed signal matches the observed speed from the independent source signal comprises performing a comparison of the vehicle speed signal and the observed speed at an interface unit [col 1, lines 50-65 for comparing to a reference signal].
Regarding Claim 8, Brown teaches exiting the calibration cycle if the vehicle speed signal matches the observed speed from the independent source signal comprises performing a comparison of the vehicle speed signal and the observed speed at an interface unit between the speed detection radar unit and the independent signal source [col 6, lines 1-15 and col 8, lines 15-50].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 4,335,382 A) in view of Shelton (US 6,023,236 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Welk et al (US 5,828,585 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Brown discloses operating the vehicle to generate the vehicle speed signal using the speed detection radar unit comprises driving the vehicle for a predetermined period of time on a course [col 6, lines 55-70].
Brown fails to explicitly teach using a non-linear course.
Welk has method of automatically calibrating a vehicle speed sensor signal to provide an accurate speed signal (abstract) and teaches using a non-linear course [col 11, lines 20-35].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Brown, further including the curved sensing environment as taught by Welk for the purpose to reduce the error caused by the fractional part of the pulse count in an interval (Welk, col 11, lines 25-35).
Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton (US 6023236 B1) in view of Brown et al (US 4,335,382 A) and Aker et al (US 2005/0062642 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Shelton teaches a system for determining a vehicle speed, comprising [col 2, lines 44-65]:
and an interface module configured to receive the speed data from the speed detection module and the speed data from the radar speed detection module [col 2, lines 30-40 for operator interface connected to speedometer and radar].
Shelton fails to explicitly teach a radar speed detection module configured to generate speed data from a reflected signal source.
Brown has a traffic radar system is provided in which the speed of a target vehicle (abstract) and teaches a radar speed detection module configured to generate speed data from a reflected signal source [col 2, lines 15-30].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the reflected signal calculations as taught by Brown for the purpose to obviate errors from targets (Brown, col 2, lines 20-30).
Shelton fails to explicitly teach and to interrupt a blocking signal if a difference between the speed data from the speed detection module and the speed data from the radar speed detection module is greater than a predetermined tolerance.
Aker has System for processing vehicle Speed data for a vehicle (abstract) and teaches and to interrupt a blocking signal if a difference between the speed data from the speed detection module and the speed data from the radar speed detection module is greater than a predetermined tolerance [0130-0133].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the blocking signals as taught by Aker for the purpose to determining directivity in tracking at Speeds above a predetermined level (Aker, 0132).
Regarding Claim 11, Shelton teaches the independent source signal is generated by a terrestrial system [col 2, lines 30-50].
Regarding Claim 12, Shelton teaches the interface module comprises a digital signal processor [col 3, lines 1-15].
Regarding Claim 13, Shelton teaches the interface module comprises a digital signal processor operating in the speed detection module [0055-0056].
Regarding Claim 14, Shelton fails to explicitly teach the interface module comprises a digital signal processor operating in the radar speed detection module.
Aker has a system for processing vehicle Speed data for a vehicle (abstract) and teaches the interface module comprises a digital signal processor operating in the radar speed detection module [0055-0056].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the blocking signals as taught by Aker for the purpose to easily track radar data by operator (Aker, 0052).
Regarding Claim 15, Shelton teaches the blocking signal is continuously generated during stationary and mobile operation [0129-0133].
Regarding Claim 16 Shelton fails to explicitly teach the radar speed detection module is configured to re-acquire the speed data when the blocking signal is interrupted.
Aker has a system for processing vehicle Speed data for a vehicle (abstract) and teaches the radar speed detection module is configured to re-acquire the speed data when the blocking signal is interrupted [0130-0133].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the blocking signals as taught by Aker for the purpose to determining directivity in tracking at Speeds above a predetermined level (Aker, 0132).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton (US 6023236 B1) in view of Brown et al (US 4,335,382 A) and Aker et al (US 2005/0062642 A1) and further in view of Prokhorov (US 2016/0161602 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Aker fails to explicitly teach the independent source signal is generated by a satellite in earth orbit.
Prokhorov has methods for calibrating sensors for an autonomous vehicle (abstract) and teaches the independent source signal is generated by a satellite in earth orbit [0022].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the satellite calibrations as taught by Prokhorov for the purpose to capture data indicative of performance of the vehicle (Prokhorov, 0022).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton (US 6023236 B1) in view of Brown et al (US 4,335,382 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Shelton teaches a system for determining a vehicle speed, comprising [col 2, lines 30-55]:
a speed detection module configured to generate speed data from an independent source signal [col 2, lines 30-55];
and the radar speed detection module configured to process the speed data to generate first speed data associated with a vehicle that the speed detection module is deployed on and second speed data associated with a target vehicle by using a window that is offset from the speed data from the independent source signal [and col 3, lines 40-60, col 4, lines 10-20, figure 5].
Shelton fails to explicitly teach a radar speed detection module configured to generate speed data from a reflected signal source.
Brown has a traffic radar system is provided in which the speed of a target vehicle (abstract) and teaches a radar speed detection module configured to generate speed data from a reflected signal source [col 2, lines 15-30].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the speed detection techniques, as disclosed by Shelton, further including the reflected signal calculations as taught by Brown for the purpose to obviate errors from targets (Brown, col 2, lines 20-30).
Regarding Claim 18, Shelton teaches the window is a frequency domain window [col 4, lines 10-20, col 4, lines 40-50 and figure 5].
Regarding Claim 19, Shelton teaches the window is a frequency domain window and the speed data from the independent source signal is a frequency that is not centered in the frequency domain window [col 4, lines 10-20, col 4, lines 40-50 and figure 5].
Regarding Claim 20, Shelton teaches the window is a frequency domain window and the speed data from the independent source signal is a frequency that is offset by a predetermined frequency in the frequency domain window [col 4, lines 10-20, col 4, lines 40-50 and figure 5].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but
are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 8, first paragraph of applicant’s submission, applicant argues that Brown has a dependent sources signal, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Brown receives data from the speedometer (independent source) [Brown, col 2, lines 40-50] and Shelton also uses pulses from speedometer [Shelton, col 3, lines 40-60]. Same argument applies from applicant’s submission for claims 2-4 and 6-8.
On page 11, second paragraph of applicant’s submission, applicant argues that non-linear movement is not taught, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Welk teaches using a non-linear course for GPS speeds [Welk, col 11, lines 20-35].
On page 12, first paragraph of applicant’s submission, applicant argues that blocking signals are not covered, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Shelton teaches blocking signals for zero pulse when the patrol speed is set to zero [Shelton col 3, lines 30-40 and col 4, lines 20-35].
On page 15, first paragraph of applicant’s submission, applicant argues that the combination of Park and Brown is not valid, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Shelton teaches using independent sources signals and is now combined with Brown [Shelton col 3, lines 10-40].
On page 15, third paragraph of applicant’s submission, applicant argues that frequency domain windows are not used, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Shelton teaches using frequency domain windows [Shelton col 4, lines 40-50].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 Kelleher can be reached on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648