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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 9 of 10) about the objections to claims 1, 3, and 4, the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 9 of 10) about the rejections of claims 3-4, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have been overcome by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 7-9 of 10) about amended Claim 1 is moot based on the new ground rejections.
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 1-5, 8, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow et al. (US 10,126,410, hereafter Treptow) in view of Park (KR 20160125667, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Treptow (‘410) discloses that A method for determining an elevation angle of an electromagnetic sensor mounted in a vehicle {Title; abstract lines 1-2 (A method for identifying an elevation misalignment angle of a radar sensor of a vehicle)}, the method comprising:
exciting a transmitter of the electromagnetic sensor with a plurality of different frequencies such that the transmitter radiates a plurality of first electromagnetic signals corresponding to the plurality of different frequencies onto a target arranged in a field of view of the electromagnetic sensor { Fig.1 items 18 (radar object), 22 (radar lobe), 24 (radar lobe); col.3 lines 50 (FMCW radar sensor), 52-53 (frequency ramp), 62 (radar object 18); col.4 lines 12-14 (a radar lobe 22 of a main antenna of antenna assemblage 12 using a solid line, and a radar lobe 24 of a second antenna using a dashed line.)}, wherein:
each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at{ Fig.1 items 22 (radar lobe), 24 (radar lobe); col.4 lines 12-14 (a radar lobe 22 of a main antenna of antenna assemblage 12 using a solid line, and a radar lobe 24 of a second antenna using a dashed line.)}, and
receiving, by the electromagnetic sensor, a plurality of second electromagnetic signals being reflections of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals at the target { Fig.2; col.3 lines 56-57 (a received radar signal.); col.4 lines 10 (two transmitting or receiving antennas), 54-56 (multiple-target estimator 28, two azimuth angles δ1, δ2 of a radar echo)}; and
determining the elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor based on the plurality of second electromagnetic signals { Fig.2 Δ α; col.4 lines 5-8 (determine the elevation angle α of a radar object localization based on radar echoes that are obtained with two antenna directional characteristics 20, 21 (FIG. 2)}.
However, Treptow (‘410) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at a different central frequency and a different angle relative to the transmitter” and “a radiation angle of each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is frequency dependent”. In the same field of endeavor, Park (‘667) discloses that
each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at a different central frequency and a different angle relative to the transmitter, and
a radiation angle of each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is frequency dependent;
{Fig.1 item RAZ_A, RAZ_B; Fig.3 items 120 (frequency shifter), RAZ_1, RAZ_N; page 3 lines 18-22 (As shown in FIG. 1, when transmitting a radar transmission signal to a target (TAR_1) object (Object) installed on one side of a wall surface in a vehicle, a center frequency of a radar is changed from a lowest band (RAZ_B) The vertical direction angle corresponding to each frequency can be set by shifting the frequency band to the frequency band (RAZ_A) at regular intervals. Therefore, it can be seen that the radar transmission signals RAZ_A and RAZ_B having different center frequencies have different vertical orientations.); page 4 lines 12 (frequency shifter 120 sequentially shifts the center frequency according to one or more frequencies), 16-18 (The antenna unit 130 emits a radar transmission signal, and transmits a radar signal at a vertical orientation angle corresponding to the shifted center frequency . That is, the antenna unit 130 can radiate the radar transmission signals RAZ_1 to RAZ_N shifted)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Treptow (‘410) with the teachings of Park (‘667) {transmit radar signals (e.g. RAZ_A and RAZ_B) having different center frequencies with different vertical orientations} to transmit radar signals (e.g. RAZ_A and RAZ_B) having different center frequencies with different vertical orientations. Doing so would provide information on the angle difference or may output an alert message indicating that misalignment has occurred in the radar so as to provide a highly accurate correction for radar mounted on a vehicle in a vehicle production line with low cost, as recognized by Park (‘667) {page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (a method and a device for vertically correcting a radar for a vehicle wherein a mounting angle can be corrected by using a frequency shift when a radar is mounted in a vehicle); page 2 lines 16-17 (There is a cost increase such as an increase in work time and an increase in the unit price of the measuring equipment to perform a highly accurate correction in a vehicle production line); page 5 lines 5-6 (provide information on the angle difference or may output an alert message indicating that misalignment has occurred in the radar modulator 110); page 6 lines 4-5 from bottom (the accuracy of the radar mounting is improved)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that in the method, determining the elevation angle includes:
estimating amplitudes of the plurality of second electromagnetic signals {see Treptow (‘410) Fig.2}; and
determining the elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor based on the estimated amplitudes {see Treptow (‘410) Fig.1 item 15 (evaluation device); Fig.2 Δ α; Fig.3 α for “angle”; col.3 lines 46-47 (an evaluation device 15 for identifying an elevation misalignment angle φ of radar sensor 10)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that in the method, determining the elevation angle includes:
estimating a maximum amplitude as a function of angle of radiation or as a function of frequency based on the estimated amplitudes { see Treptow (‘410) Fig.1 item 22 (radar lobe); Fig.2 Δ α; Fig.3 α for “angle”; col.4 lines 24-25 (radar lobe 22, is located e.g. at an elevation angle 0°)}; and
determining the elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor based on at least one of: the angle of radiation or frequency corresponding to the estimated maximum amplitude { see Treptow (‘410) Fig.2 Δ α ; col.4 lines 24-25 (radar lobe 22, is located e.g. at an elevation angle 0°); col.5 lines 27-29 (Ground reflection correction device 30 , carries out a correction of the elevation angles α and conveys a corrected elevation angle α '), 31-34 (create a histogram of the elevation angles of the selected radar object localizations, an estimated value for an elevation misalignment angle φ)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-3, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that in the method, estimating the maximum amplitude includes:
fitting a curve to the estimated amplitudes as a function of at least one of: the corresponding angles of radiation or frequencies; and
determining the maximum of the curve.
{ see Treptow (‘410) Fig.2 Δ α; col.4 lines 5-8 (determine the elevation angle α of a radar object localization based on radar echoes that are obtained with two antenna directional characteristics 20, 21 (FIG. 2)), 24-25 (radar lobe 22, is located e.g. at an elevation angle 0°)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that the method further comprising:
mapping at least one frequency at which one of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated to a corresponding angle of radiation of the corresponding electromagnetic signal { see Treptow (‘410) col.4 lines 38-40 (a single target angle estimator 27 that is configured to identify, for each frequency ramp of a measurement cycle), 44-46 (the azimuth angle δ of the localized objects 18 can be identified on the basis of a known angle dependence of the amplitudes and phases.); Examiner’s note: “based on known …” for “mapping”}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that in the method,
the transmitter comprises an array of radiator elements { see Treptow (‘410) Fig.1 items 22 (radar lobe), 24 (radar lobe); col.4 lines 12-14 (a radar lobe 22 of a main antenna of antenna assemblage 12 using a solid line, and a radar lobe 24 of a second antenna using a dashed line.); Examiner’s note: “main antenna” and “second antenna” form an array.}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claims 1-2, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that in the method, estimating amplitudes of the plurality of second electromagnetic signals includes:
normalizing at least a first amplitude corresponding to a first frequency based on a parameter to obtain a first normalized amplitude { see Treptow (‘410) col.4 lines 41-42 (normalized amplitudes and phases of peaks of the baseband signals); Examiner’s note: peak of baseband signal corresponds to a frequency, which addresses “a first frequency”. peak is ”a parameter” }.
Regarding claim 14, Treptow (‘410), as modified above, discloses that An electromagnetic sensor mountable on a vehicle {title (a radar sensor of a motor vehicle)}, wherein the electromagnetic sensor is adapted to perform:
exciting a transmitter of the electromagnetic sensor with a plurality of different frequencies such that the transmitter radiates a plurality of first electromagnetic signals corresponding to the plurality of different frequencies onto a target arranged in a field of view of the electromagnetic sensor, wherein:
each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at a different central frequency and a different angle relative to the transmitter, and
a radiation angle of each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is frequency dependent;
receiving, by the electromagnetic sensor, a plurality of second electromagnetic signals being reflections of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals at the target; and
determining an elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor based on the plurality of second electromagnetic signals.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raphaeli et al. (US 2020/0033445, hereafter Raphaeli).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1-2, Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) do not explicitly disclose “compensating for the gain of the electromagnetic sensor as a function of frequency”. In the same field of endeavor, Raphaeli (‘445) discloses that in the method, estimating amplitudes of the plurality of second electromagnetic signals includes:
compensating for the gain of the electromagnetic sensor as a function of frequency {Fig.2 item 14 (receiver); [0018] lines 9 (The receiver 14), 17-18 (process electromagnetic signals received by the receive antenna array), 21-22 (amplifiers , mixer), 25-28 (signal processing functions like analyzing various properties of the signals and waveforms to determine information such as phase , frequency , and amplitude .); Examiner’s note: waveform analysis for “compensating for the gain of the sensor as a function of frequency”. Amplifier and mixer also for “compensating for the gain of the sensor as a function of frequency”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Raphaeli (‘445) { adjust gain versus frequency for received signal at receiver (e.g. amplify received signal, down-convert received signal by mixer, and waveform analysis to received signal) } to adjust gain versus frequency for received signal at receiver (e.g. amplify received signal, down-convert received signal by mixer, and waveform analysis to received signal). Doing so would more accurately calculate radar object parameters (e.g. measure a set of elevation angles and a set of azimuth angles of the radar system) so as to obtain calibration matrix for radar system calibration, as recognized by Raphaeli (‘445) {[0005] lines 9-10 (measuring a set of azimuth angles of the radar system), 14 (measuring a set of elevation angles of the radar system), 18 (obtaining an azimuth calibration matrix), 20 (an elevation calibration matrix), 22-24 (radar system to apply the azimuth calibration matrix and the elevation calibration matrix to one or more antenna array responses); [0013] lines 3-4 (target object parameters can be calculated with improved accuracy)}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winter et al. (US 6,476,760, hereafter Winter).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Treptow (‘410) discloses that in the method,
exciting the transmitter, receiving the second electromagnetic signals, and determining the elevation angle are repeated N times { Fig.1 item 14 including item 27 output δ, d, v, α; Col.3 lines 51-52 (the frequency of a transmitted radar signal is periodically modulated), 53 (four ramps per measurement cycle.); col.5 lines 27-28 (Ground reflection correction device 30, carries out a correction of the elevation angles α), 31-33 (create a histogram of the elevation angles of the selected radar object localizations, an estimated value for an elevation misalignment angle φ); col.7 lines 36-38 (The elevation misalignment angle φ is identified, as described, from the location, ascertained by unit 32, of the occurrence frequency maximum of the histogram); Examiner’s note: histogram is created by repeated data collection. δ and α are for each radar echo corresponds to one δ and one α. }, and
However, Treptow (‘410) does not explicitly disclose “an average elevation angle is determined as the mean of the N repetitions”. Park (‘667) does not disclose “an average elevation angle is determined as the mean of the N repetitions” as well. In the same field of endeavor, Winter (‘760) discloses that
an average elevation angle is determined as the mean of the N repetitions {col.4 lines 8-10 (in position 24, the error angle for elevation adjustment Stored with the highest frequency is determined by averaging the values from the stored long-term.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Winter (‘760) {take the average value of long-term measurements as an elevation error } to take the average value of long-term measurements as an elevation error. Doing so would obtain a reliable angle analysis so as to minimize the dependence on vertical fluctuations, as recognized by Winter (‘760) {col.4 lines 18-19 ( a reliable angle analysis is obtained, which has minimum dependence on vertical fluctuations.)}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 8,344,940, hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) do not explicitly disclose “the radiator elements are excited in series, or wherein the array is excited between two radiator elements or with a feeding network”, “the transmitter comprises a further array being shifted in elevation relative to the other array”, and “both arrays are excited simultaneously”. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong (‘940) discloses that in the method,
the radiator elements are excited in series, or wherein the array is excited between two radiator elements or with a feeding network {Fig.3(b) Tx1 } ;and
wherein the transmitter comprises a further array being shifted in elevation relative to the other array {Fig.3(b) Tx2; Examiner’s note: Tx2 is shifted in elevation relative to Tx1 and TxM based on the figure in Fig.3(b) on right } and
wherein both arrays are excited simultaneously {Fig.3(b) Tx1 and Tx2 have same input}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Jeong (‘940) {use two antenna arrays vertically shifted arranged and transmit signals at the same time} to use two antenna arrays vertically shifted arranged and transmit signals at the same time. Doing so would provide transmit signals with different radiating angles for determining whether or not a vertical misalignment of a sensor occurs so as to correct the vertical misalignment of the sensor based on the determination, as recognized by Jeong (‘940) {col.2 lines 6-7 (different radiating angles, required to correct the vertical misalignment); col.7 lines 4-5 (to correct the vertical misalignment of the sensor 100 when it is determined that the vertical misalignment of the sensor 100 occurs.)}.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Berry et al . (US 2022/0091254, hereafter Berry).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claims 1-2 and 10, Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) do not explicitly disclose “determining the elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor includes : comparing at least the first normalized amplitude against values in a look-up- table stored in the electromagnetic sensor, wherein the look-up-table contains signal amplitude values corresponding to different radiation angles at at least the first frequency”. In the same field of endeavor, Berry (‘254) discloses that in the method, determining the elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor includes:
comparing at least the first normalized amplitude against values in a look-up- table stored in the electromagnetic sensor {[0021] lines 1-7 (a radar elevation angle validation system may utilize the baseline lookup table that may form a dataset to validate the radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the baseline lookup table to retrieve a radar elevation angle, signal energy level)},
wherein the look-up-table contains signal amplitude values corresponding to different radiation angles at at least the first frequency {[0018] lines 6-9 (the lookup table may be generated based on the location of the corner reflector , the location of the radar , a radar elevation angle , and a signal energy value .); [0021] lines 10-12 (That entry of the baseline lookup table may indicate that the radar elevation angle should be at a certain value .)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Berry (‘254) {use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a radar elevation angle} to use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a radar elevation angle. Doing so would provide searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements (e.g. by matching measured signal energy level to an entry in the lookup table) so as to enhance the proper orientation of sensors by providing an accurate radar elevation angle, as recognized by Berry (‘254) {[0003] lines 2-4 (enhance the proper orientation of sensors to ensure that captured data does not undermine the sensor system performance); [0018] lines 1-3 from bottom (This may result in searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements); [0039] lines 8-9 (the measured signal energy level may be matched to an entry in the baseline lookup table 402 .)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claims 1-2 and 10-11, Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) do not explicitly disclose “comparing at least the first normalized amplitude includes: calculating a difference between at least the first normalized amplitude and the signal amplitude values contained in the look-up-table”. In the same field of endeavor, Berry (‘254) discloses that in the method, comparing at least the first normalized amplitude includes:
calculating a difference between at least the first normalized amplitude and the signal amplitude values contained in the look-up-table {[0021] lines 14-19 (If the value of the radar elevation angle is greater than a threshold , it may be determined that the radar has failed the validation test . If the value of the radar elevation angle is less than a threshold it may be determined that the radar has passed the validation test .}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Berry (‘254) {use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a radar elevation angle (e.g. find difference between captured signal value and corresponding entry in the lookup table)} to use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a radar elevation angle (e.g. find difference between captured signal value and corresponding entry in the lookup table). Doing so would provide searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements (e.g. by matching measured signal energy level to an entry in the lookup table) so as to enhance the proper orientation of sensors by providing an accurate radar elevation angle, as recognized by Berry (‘254) {[0003] lines 2-4 (enhance the proper orientation of sensors to ensure that captured data does not undermine the sensor system performance); [0018] lines 1-3 from bottom (This may result in searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements); [0039] lines 8-9 (the measured signal energy level may be matched to an entry in the baseline lookup table 402 .)}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claims 1-2 and 10-12, Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) does not explicitly disclose “estimating a location of a minimum of the difference as a function of the radiation angle, wherein the location corresponds to the determined elevation angle”. In the same field of endeavor, Berry (‘254) discloses that the method further comprising:
estimating a location of a minimum of the difference as a function of the radiation angle {[0021] lines 6 from bottom (the optimal pitch angle of zero degrees); [0039] lines 8-9 (the measured signal energy level may be matched to an entry in the baseline lookup table 402 .); Examiner’s note: match for “the minimum of the difference”},
wherein the location corresponds to the determined elevation angle {[0021] lines 18-19 (the corresponding entry in the lookup table returns a radar elevation value)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Berry (‘254) {use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a matched radar elevation angle (e.g. find difference between captured signal value and corresponding entry in the lookup table)} to use lookup table to validate radar under test by comparing a captured signal value to a corresponding entry in the lookup table to retrieve a matched radar elevation angle (e.g. find difference between captured signal value and corresponding entry in the lookup table). Doing so would provide searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements (e.g. by matching measured signal energy level to an entry in the lookup table) so as to enhance the proper orientation of sensors by providing an accurate radar elevation angle, as recognized by Berry (‘254) {[0003] lines 2-4 (enhance the proper orientation of sensors to ensure that captured data does not undermine the sensor system performance); [0018] lines 1-3 from bottom (This may result in searchable dataset to retrieve relevant information based on the various signal measurements); [0039] lines 8-9 (the measured signal energy level may be matched to an entry in the baseline lookup table 402 .)}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treptow (‘410) in view of Park (‘667) and Berry (‘254).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) discloses that
exciting a transmitter of an electromagnetic sensor with a plurality of different frequencies such that the transmitter radiates a plurality of first electromagnetic signals corresponding to the plurality of different frequencies onto a target arranged in a field of view of the electromagnetic sensor, wherein:
each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at a different central frequency and a different angle relative to the transmitter, and
a radiation angle of each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is frequency dependent;
receiving, by the electromagnetic sensor, a plurality of second electromagnetic signals being reflections of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals at the target; and
determining an elevation angle of the electromagnetic sensor based on the plurality of second electromagnetic signals.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
However, the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) do not explicitly disclose “A non-transitory computer- readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform” a method. In the same field of endeavor, Berry (‘254) discloses that
A non-transitory computer- readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method {Fig.6 items 609 (radar elevation angle validation device), 602-603 (processor), 616, 618 (memory); [0052] (computing system 600 of FIG.6); [0055] lines 10-14 (System 600 may include read only memory ( ROM ) , and / or other static storage device coupled to the processor bus 612 for storing static information and instructions for the processor ( s ) 602-606 , and / or the radar elevation angle validation device 609.); [0068] lines 1 (A machine - readable medium), 9 (computer program)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Treptow (‘410) and Park (‘667) with the teachings of Berry (‘254) {use computer system with memory, program, and/or instructions to implement radar elevation angle validation} to use computer system with memory, program, and/or instructions to implement radar elevation angle validation. Doing so would perform any of one or more techniques or methods for radar elevation angle validation so as to enhance the proper orientation of sensors by providing an accurate radar elevation angle, as recognized by Berry (‘254) {[0003] lines 2-4 (enhance the proper orientation of sensors to ensure that captured data does not undermine the sensor system performance); [0009] lines 2-3 (computer system upon which any of one or more techniques ( e.g. , methods ) may be performed)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0041611 discloses that “each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is radiated at a different central frequency and a different angle relative to the transmitter, and a radiation angle of each of the plurality of first electromagnetic signals is frequency dependent” {Fig.1 items 12-1, 12-2, 14, 15; [0041] lines 11-15 (use the first FMCW frequency ramp 14 to produce a first directional FMCW frequency ramp 14 to produce a first directional characteristic 12-1 and to use the second FMCW frequency ramp 15 to produce a different , second directional characteristic 12-2 for the at least one antenna 11); [0046] lines 4-7 (panel antenna 11 is mounted vertically, its radiating angle changes in the elevation direction in the case of FMCW frequency ramps having different center frequencies)}, which further support the rejections of claims 1, 14, and 15.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648