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 09/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
The amendment to the claims filed on 09/06/2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the status of original claims 1-3 and 5 are not indicated. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/06/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 3) about the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection has been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 3-6) about the rejections of claims 1-5, Examiner disagrees because:
1) For the argument “Ferguson does not disclose either a 4D radar system or a stereo vision system” (see REMARKS page 3 lines 9-10 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 08/14/2025, Ferguson (‘525) discloses a radar system and a stereo vision system and Ferguson does not disclose a 4D radar system. A 4D radar system is disclosed in Lyu (‘604).
2) For the argument “Lyu lacks the specific overlapping field-of-view configuration and integration described in the present invention” (see REMARKS page 3 lines 8-9 from bottom) and “Nowhere in Lyu's disclosure is there any teaching or suggestion of a 4D radar and stereo vision system configuration that enables overlapping fields of view in the range of 1 to 300 meters. Lyu does not address the spatial alignment, frustum integration, or baseline requirements necessary to achieve such overlap” (see remarks page 4 lines 17-20), Examiner does not understand why Lyu (‘604) need “the specific overlapping field-of-view configuration and integration described in the present invention” and “enables overlapping fields of view in the range of 1 to 300 meters. Lyu does not address the spatial alignment, frustum integration, or baseline requirements necessary to achieve such overlap”. In the Non-Final Rejection filed on 08/14/2025, Lyu (‘604) teaches 4-dimensional data structure in a radar system, which can be combined with Ferguson (‘525) to achieve “a 4D radar system”. To avoid confusion, Examiner only emphasizes 4D radar using Lyu (‘604) in this Office Action.
3) For the argument regarding claimed language “baseline” (see REMARKS from page 3 line 7 to page 4 line 6), Examiner disagrees because Ferguson (‘525) col.8 lines 45-46 (cameras may be mounted at predetermined distances) and col.9 lines 17-18 (sensor fields 422-424 of cameras 314-316), 25 (Stereo cameras) disclose that stereo cameras are achieved by “mounted at predetermined distances”. Therefore the “predetermined distances” is a baseline for achieving a stereo cameras.
4) For the argument regarding the claimed language “wherein FOV1 and FOV2 overlap in the range of 1 meter to 300 meters" (see REMARKS from page 4 line 7-16), Examiner disagrees because Ferguson (‘525) Fig.4A (see marks below) clearly shows the overlap field of views of radar and camera with distance marks on left, which overcome the claimed language “wherein FOV1 and FOV2 overlap in the range of 1 meter to 300 meters”. Examiner does not understand why applicant mentioned blind spots in the argument.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
5) For the argument regarding “obvious by the combination of Ferguson and Lyu” (see REMARKS page 4 lines 6-10 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 4D radar, which extract 4-dimensional radar data structure, from Lyu (‘604) in the system of Ferguson (‘525) by combination, as needed. Examiner does not see the reason why Ferguson (‘525) cannot combine with Lyu (‘604) to extract 4-dimensional radar data structure.
6) For the argument regarding claim 2 (see REMARKS from page 4 line 5 from bottom to page 5 line 8), especially “While Ferguson and Lyu describe overlapping sensor fields, neither reference quantifies the degree of overlap nor addresses the spatial constraints necessary to achieve such a high percentage of overlap across the full range” (see REMARKS page 4 lines 1-3 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because for the claimed language “FOV1 overlaps with more than 30% of the area of FOV2 in the range of 0.3 meter to 300 meters”, Ferguson (‘525) Fig.4A items 422 (camera field), 406 (radar field) shows “FOV1 overlaps with more than 30% of the area of FOV2 in the range of 0.3 meter to 300 meters” (see marks below, the overlap FOV of items 422 (camera field) and 406 (radar field) at the distance with mark is more than 30%).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7) For the argument regarding claim 3 (see REMARKS page 5 lines 9-19), especially “While Lyu acknowledges the low resolution of current 4D radar systems, it does not disclose any comparative resolution advantage of stereo vision, nor does it describe how higher pixel resolution contributes to disparity computation in stereo imaging” (see REMARKS page 5 lines 11-13), Examiner disagrees because for the claimed language “FOV1 has higher pixel resolutions than FOV2”, Lyu (‘604) discloses low resolution of 4D millimeter-wave radar and high resolution camera sensor in one system, which clearly expresses the resolution of “high resolution” is higher than the resolution of “low resolution”.
8) For the argument regarding amended claim 4 (see REMARKS page 5 lines 1-11 from bottom), especially “Shen-while discussing stereo vision and radar fusion-does not teach or suggest this specific colocation requirement” (see REMARKS page 5 lines 6-7 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because for the claimed language “the origin point of the field of view FOV1 of the stereo vision system is located less than 20 cm from the origin point of the field of view FOV2 of the 4D radar system, where the origin point of each field of view is defined as the geometric center of the respective sensor's aperture”, Shen (‘NPL) Fig.3 clearly show the “the origin point of the field of view FOV1 of the stereo vision system is located” zero “from the origin point of the field of view FOV2 of the
9) For the argument regarding claim 5 (see REMARKS page 6 lines 1-11), especially “Li discloses various baseline lengths for stereo cameras, it does not teach the integration of such a baseline with a 4D radar system, nor does it address the functional advantages of this configuration in the context of radar-vision fusion” (see REMARKS page 6 lines 2-5), Examiner disagrees because for the claimed language “the baseline B1 is at least 10 cm”, which is for stereo cameras only. “the integration of such a baseline with a 4D radar system” and “radar-vision fusion” are in the combination of Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604).
Claim Objections
The acronyms 4D should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitations: 1) "each field of view” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether “each field of view” is one of “the field of view FOV1l of the stereo vision system” and “the field of view FOV2 of the 4D radar system” or a new field of view. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the field of view FOV1 or the field of view FOV2” 2) “the respective sensor's aperture " in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “sensor's aperture” is not defined or mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a stereo vision system's aperture or a 4D radar system’s aperture". Appropriate clarifications are required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al. (US 9,274,525, hereafter Ferguson) in view of Lyu et al. (US2024/0027604, hereafter Lyu).
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson (‘525) discloses that An stereo 4D radar vision system {Fig.1 item 148 (Camera, Radar); Fig.4A items 422, 424 (camera field), 406 (radar field); col.9 lines 1-2 (sensor fields 406-420 and for radar detection units 306–312,), 17-18 (sensor fields 422-424 of cameras 314-316), 25 (Stereo cameras)}, comprising:
a stereo vision system with a field of view FOV1 and baseline B1 {Fig.3 item 314, 316; Fig.4A items 422, 424 (camera field); col.8 lines 45-46 (cameras may be mounted at predetermined distances); col.9 lines 17-18 (sensor fields 422-424 of cameras 314-316), 25 (Stereo cameras); Examiner’s note: “predetermined distances” for “baseline” },
a 4D radar system with a field of view FOV2 { Fig.4A item 406 (radar field); col.4 lines 11 (radar detection unit detects a vehicle), 14 (lateral speed), 16 (direction, right or left), 18 (distance); col.9 lines 1-2 (sensor fields 406-420 and for radar detection units 306–312)},
wherein, FOV1 and FOV2 overlap in the range of 1 meter to 300 meters { Fig.4A items 422, 424 (camera field), 406 (radar field) (see meter marks [0, 50, 100, 150, 200]); col.8 lines 51-55 (The camera 314 may include a range of approximately 200 meters and an approximately 30 degree horizontal field of view, while the camera 316 may include a range of approximately 100 meters and an approximately 60 degree horizontal field of view.); col.9 lines 1-2 (sensor fields 406-420 and for radar detection units 306–312), 6 (200meter), 8 (80 meter), 17-18 (sensor fields 422-424 of cameras 314-316,)}.
However, Ferguson (‘525) does not explicitly disclose “4D radar”. In the same field of endeavor, Lyu (‘604) discloses that
a 4D radar { Fig.3 item 104 (4D imaging radar)};
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 Ferguson (‘525) with the teachings of Lyu (‘604) {use a 4D radar} to use a 4D radar. Doing so would add more information (e.g. elevation angle) onto traditional three-dimensional (3D) radar to provide a 3D contour high-resolution point cloud and high-precision speed information so as to meet high-precision perception requirements of high-level autonomous driving, as recognized by Lyu (‘604) {[0002] lines 5-6 (to meet high-precision perception requirements of high-level autonomous driving), 8-11 (The elevation angle is added onto the basis of the original 3D millimeter-wave radar, in order to provide a 3D contour high-resolution point cloud and high-precision speed information.)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) discloses that in the stereo 4D radar vision system,
FOV1 overlaps with more than 30% of the area of FOV2 in the range of 0.3 meter to 300 meters {see Ferguson (‘525) Fig.4A items 422 (camera field), 406 (radar field); col.9 lines 1-2 (sensor fields 406-420 and for radar detection units 306–312), 17-18 (sensor fields 422-424 of cameras 314-316,)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Ferguson (‘525) does not explicitly disclose “FOV1 has higher pixel resolutions than FOV2”. In the same field of endeavor, Lyu (‘604) discloses that in the stereo 4D radar vision system,
FOV1 has higher pixel resolutions than FOV2 {[0003] lines 3-4 (current 4D millimeter-wave radar also has problems such as low resolution); [0004] lines 5-6 (for the low resolution of current 4D millimeter-wave radar); [0078] lines 1-2 (The camera sensor 140 may implement a high resolution sensor.)}.
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 Ferguson (‘525) with the teachings of Lyu (‘604) {use 4D radar with lower resolution and stereo vision (e.g. camera) with high resolution} to use 4D radar with lower resolution stereo vision (e.g. camera) with high resolution. Doing so would add more information (e.g. elevation angle) onto traditional three-dimensional (3D) radar to provide a 3D contour high-resolution point cloud and high-precision speed information by fusion of 4D millimeter-wave radar sensors and camera sensors so as to meet high-precision perception requirements of high-level autonomous driving with low cost, as recognized by Lyu (‘604) {[0002] lines 5-6 (to meet high-precision perception requirements of high-level autonomous driving), 8-11 (The elevation angle is added onto the basis of the original 3D millimeter-wave radar, in order to provide a 3D contour high-resolution point cloud and high-precision speed information.); [0004] lines 1-6 (fusion of 4D millimeter-wave radar sensors and camera sensors has become a complementary and cost-effective solution, which can not only take advantage of the advantages of 4D millimeter-wave radar, but also may make up, to a certain extent, for the low resolution of current 4D millimeter-wave radar.)}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (T. Shen, G. Schamp, T. Cooprider and F. Ibrahim, "Stereo vision based full-range object detection and tracking," 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Washington, DC, USA, 2011, pp. 925-930, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2011.6083150, hereafter Shen).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) do not explicitly disclose “the center of FOV1 is at a distance of less than 20 cm away from the center of FOV2”. In the same field of endeavor, Shen (‘NPL) discloses that in the stereo 4D radar vision system,
the origin point of the field of view FOV1 of the stereo vision system is located less than 20 cm from the origin point of the field of view FOV2 of the 4D radar system, where the origin point of each field of view is defined as the geometric center of the respective sensor's aperture. {Fig.1 (stereo camera); Fig.3 (radar, SVS); Examiner’s note: origin points of radar FOV and SVS FOV is zero, which is less than 20cm.}.
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 Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) with the teachings of Shen (‘NPL) {overlap field of views (FOVs) of radar and stereo vision (e.g. camera), including the origins of the FOVs} to overlap field of views (FOVs) of radar and stereo vision (e.g. camera), including the origins of the FOVs. Doing so would capture high resolution and high dynamic range images to perform multi-sensor fusion so as to enables the system to obtain range maps, road surface estimation, object detection, segmentation and tracking for more comprehensive and reliable sensing, as recognized by Shen (‘NPL) {page 925 title; page 925 left column lines 10-11 from bottom (multi-sensor fusion for more comprehensive and reliable sensing); page 925 right column lines 26-27 (generate high resolution, high dynamic range, wide field of view intensity images), 29-32 (enables the system to run at 20 Hz. computing 1280x456 range maps, road surface estimation, object detection, segmentation and tracking.); page 926 left column below Fig.2 lines 10-12 (capture high resolution, high dynamic range images for all the supported functions in the Stereo Vision Module)}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al . (US 11,041,958, hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Ferguson (‘525) and Lyu (‘604) do not explicitly disclose “the baseline B1 is at least 10 cm”. In the same field of endeavor, Li (‘958) discloses that in the stereo 4D radar vision system,
the baseline B1 is at least 10 cm {col.42 lines 52 (stereo, camera, baseline), 65-66 (0.1 m, 0.2 m , 0.3 m , 0.4 m , 0.5 m , 0.6 m , 0.7 m , 0.8 m , 0.9 m)}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. separate two cameras by 0.1m or more to build a stereo vision system) to a known device (e.g. a stereo vision system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. build a stereo vision system using two cameras) and result in an improved system (e.g. use two cameras with a proper baseline to allow more accurate depth and distance information to be obtained, as recognized by Li (‘958) {col.44 lines 33-35 (increase in baseline b also increase disparity which allows more accurate depth and distance information to be obtained))}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,978,122 discloses “a stereo vision system with baseline B 1” and “a radar system” {Fig.1 items 12, 16, 18 (stereo vision system), 14 (radar); col.2 lines 29-30 (both a stereo vision system (SVS) 12 and a radar system 14 in a single assembly), 40-41 (Camera sensors 16, 18 are positioned with an offset or baseline separation)}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
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
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636