DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1-13-2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-9-2026 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heilmann, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0032840, published February 9, 2012 in view of Sakamoto, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0019534, published January 21, 2021.
As per claims 1 and 13, Heilmann discloses a driving assistance system for a vehicle, the driving assistance system comprising:
a radar mounted on the vehicle, and configured to emit a transmission signal around the vehicle and receive reflected signals reflected from an object around the vehicle (Heilmann, ¶20);
and a processor configured to filter a noise signal included in the reflected signals received by the radar in a rainy environment or snowy environment (Heilmann, ¶23),
wherein the processor is configured to set a filtering condition of the noise signal based on precipitation amount, determine a reflected signal corresponding to the set filtering condition among the reflected signals received by the radar as the noise signal, and filter the determined noise signal (Heilmann, ¶29).
Heilmann fails to disclose adjusting filtering based on a rainfall reference.
Sakamoto teaches filtering adjustments based on a threshold rainfall amount (¶73).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust filtering in order to gain the benefit of adjusting for a noise increase due to rainfall increase.
As per claims 2 and 14, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto discloses the driving assistance system of claim 1, wherein the set filtering condition includes at least one of an angle corresponding to the reflected signal, a speed corresponding to the reflected signal, a distance corresponding to the reflected signal, and an intensity corresponding to the reflected signal (Heilmann, ¶29 where detection threshold relates to intensity).
As per claims 4 and 16, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto further discloses the driving assistance system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the precipitation amount based on at least one of an output of a rain sensor provided in the vehicle, an output of a camera provided in the vehicle, and an output of a light detection and ranging system (lidar) provided in the vehicle and the cumulative detection amount of the noise estimation signal included in the reflected signals (Heilmann, ¶7 and 22 where rain intensity is determined through noise).
As per claims 6 and 18, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto further discloses the driving assistance system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to determine a reflected signal having a detected intensity smaller than or equal to a threshold value and a corresponding speed smaller than a speed of the vehicle as the noise estimation signal (Heilmann, ¶21 and 31 where velocity affects the detection threshold for objects/rain).
As per claims 7 and 20, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto further discloses the driving assistance system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to adjust the filtering condition according to at least one of a mounting position and a function of the radar (Heilmann, ¶2-4 and Fig. 3 where the radar functional limits are known and factor into the filtering of rain/noise).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heilmann and Sakamoto as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 above and further in view of Michenfelder, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 6,376,824, published April 23, 2002.
As per claims 3 and 15, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to disclose a rain sensor.
Michenfelder teaches a vehicle rain sensor (Col. 1, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a rain sensor in order to gain the obvious benefit of providing a secondary source of possible rain, separate from the sensor detection.
As per claims 5 and 17, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto and Michenfelder discloses the driving assistance system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine, among the reflected signals, a reflected signal having a detected intensity smaller than or equal to a threshold value and a corresponding speed smaller than a speed of the vehicle as the noise estimation signal (Heilmann, ¶21 and 31 where velocity affects the detection threshold for objects/rain).
9. Claim(s) 8 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heilmann and Sakamoto as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 above and further in view of Driscoll, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0137601, published May 9, 2019.
As per claim 8, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto discloses the system of claim 7 but fails to disclose sensors on the front and back and angle setting.
Driscoll teaches vehicle radars on front and back (Fig. 9E) and adjusting angles as desired (¶23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use multiple radars and beam adjustments in order to gain the benefit of providing improved vehicle coverage and target tracking.
As per claim 21, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto and Driscoll further discloses A driving assistance system for a vehicle, the driving assistance system comprising:
a radar mounted on the vehicle, and configured to emit a transmission signal around the vehicle and receive reflected signals reflected from an object around the vehicle (Heilmann, ¶20);
and a processor configured to filter a noise signal included in the reflected signals received by the radar in a rainy environment or snowy environment (Heilmann, ¶23),
wherein the processor is configured to set a filtering condition of the noise signal based on precipitation amount, determine a reflected signal corresponding to the set filtering condition among the reflected signals received by the radar as the noise signal, and filter the determined noise signal (Heilmann, ¶29)
and increase a minimum detection amount of the reflected signal for generating the track when precipitation amount is included in a first range, and adjust an antenna beam pattern of the radar to avoid a water spray section when the precipitation amount is included in a second range (Heilmann, ¶31 detection threshold and Driscoll, ¶23 beam pattern adjustments).
As per claim 22, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto and Driscoll further discloses the driving assistance system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to adjust at least one of a beam width and a beam angle of the radar when the precipitation amount is included in the second range (Driscoll, ¶23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the distance limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claims 23 and 24, Heilmann as modified by Sakamoto and Driscoll further discloses the system of claim 22 using two radars and turning them on and off at the appropriate ranges (Heilmann, Fig. 2 and Driscoll, Fig. 9E and ¶23).
It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how many sensors are needed and when to utilize each.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights