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 November 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 have been amended. Claim 11 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed July 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170094805 A), hereinafter Lee.
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 10 recites the limitations “the number of objects detected by the radar” and “the number of objects in the target area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner apologizes for having neglected to include this notion in the Non-Final Rejection filed July 16, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20170094805 A), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a radar installation-angle adjustment method of adjusting an installation angle of an infrastructure radio-wave radar configured to detect an object in a target area (para. 20, “The present invention installs radar, GNSS, and a video camera on the side of a road, informs a control system of the location where the radar is installed, analyzes radio waves emitted from the radar toward the road and radio waves reflected by vehicles, etc., and sends location and speed information of objects such as vehicles to the control system, while synchronizing the image and location shown in an image of the road captured by the video camera, so that the control system recognizes that traffic information [vehicle location] sent from the radar corresponds to a specific location in the video camera image”), the method comprising:
a first adjustment of adjusting an angle of a radar installed at an installation target without operating the radar, the radar being installed on a stationary platform as the installation target (para. 16, “Meanwhile, the traffic information measuring system including the radar, motion sensor and video camera of the present invention must align the units when installing them on an actual road, and alignment is a very important prerequisite process in traffic information measuring.”; para. 63, “The integrated radar-video camera traffic information measurement system is installed together on the pole for the traffic light, and the radar detects objects passing through the area marked with an orange cone.”; Fig. 3, pole is stationary), and
a second adjustment of operating the radar at the angle of which has been adjusted in the first adjustment, and adjusting the angle of the radar based on a detection result of the radar (paras. 17-18, “After installation, if the alignment is misaligned due to an accident, strong wind, or heavy rain, the installer must come to the site and perform alignment work as if it were the first time it was installed. […] Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth].”; paras. 45-46, “That is, by using GNSS and motion sensors, the installed measuring device can recognize its own exact location, and by combining this function with a digital map, it can accurately determine the road location and direction that the measuring device is measuring. By combining a radar device and a camera, lane information is confirmed through video and compared and adjusted with radar information, making installation easy and convenient for maintenance.”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 1,
wherein the first adjustment includes determining whether a check result of an angle check device attached to the radar satisfies a first condition set in advance, and the first adjustment is completed when the check result satisfies the first condition (para. 18, “Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth].”; Examiner is construing each angle value as a separate condition).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 2,
wherein the angle check device is a sighting device, and the first condition is that a field of view of the sighting device is included in the target area (paras. 16-17, “Meanwhile, the traffic information measuring system including the radar, motion sensor and video camera of the present invention must align the units when installing them on an actual road, and alignment is a very important prerequisite process in traffic information measuring. When installing a conventional traffic information measurement system without a motion sensor, the installer visually aligns the direction relative to the road, checks the alignment results through video information, and then performs alignment again. After installation, if the alignment is misaligned due to an accident, strong wind, or heavy rain, the installer must come to the site and perform alignment work as if it were the first time it was installed.”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 2,
wherein the angle check device is an angle sensor configured to detect at least one angle of a horizontal angle and a depression angle of the radar, and wherein the first condition is that the angle detected by the angle sensor is included in a predetermined setting range (para. 18, “Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth]. Therefore, in the future, if the alignment is disrupted due to weather phenomena or accidents, the corresponding values will change and the control system will be able to detect this.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 4,
wherein the first adjustment includes determining an angle setting based on the angle detected by the angle sensor and an installation height of the radar (para. 18, “Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth]. Therefore, in the future, if the alignment is disrupted due to weather phenomena or accidents, the corresponding values will change and the control system will be able to detect this.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 5,
wherein the angle setting is determined by an information terminal configured to receive angle information indicating the angle detected by the angle sensor and height information indicating the installation height (para. 18, “Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth]. Therefore, in the future, if the alignment is disrupted due to weather phenomena or accidents, the corresponding values will change and the control system will be able to detect this. Preferably, an alignment management program module is installed to transmit an alarm signal to the control system when the alignment is misaligned.”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 2,
wherein the second adjustment includes determining whether the detection result of the radar satisfies a second condition set in advance, and the second adjustment is completed when the detection result satisfies the second condition (paras. 17-18, “After installation, if the alignment is misaligned due to an accident, strong wind, or heavy rain, the installer must come to the site and perform alignment work as if it were the first time it was installed. […] Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth].”; Examiner is construing each angle value as a separate condition).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 8,
wherein the second condition is that a position of an object detected by the radar is included in a predetermined range (paras. 17-18, “After installation, if the alignment is misaligned due to an accident, strong wind, or heavy rain, the installer must come to the site and perform alignment work as if it were the first time it was installed. […] Therefore, the installer sets the tilt angle so that the traffic information system is installed parallel to the road surface, finds the altitude and azimuth that can observe the road lane to be observed from the installation point by the motion sensor, completes the alignment [checks the alignment through the video], and then memorizes the corresponding values [tilt angle, altitude, azimuth].”; Examiner is construing each angle value as a separate condition, and a condition of a comparison as inherently having a predetermined range even if it is a range including only an exact value).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 1,
wherein the stationary platform includes a pole (para. 63, “The integrated radar-video camera traffic information measurement system is installed together on the pole for the traffic light, and the radar detects objects passing through the area marked with an orange cone.”; Fig. 3, radar-video camera system is mounted on a pole).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lee in view of Matsui (JP 2011226810 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the radar installation-angle adjustment method according to claim 2, but fails to teach
wherein the angle check device is attachable to and detachable from the radar, and the angle check device is attached to the radar in the first adjustment.
However, Matsui teaches
wherein the angle check device is attachable to and detachable from the radar, and the angle check device is attached to the radar in the first adjustment (para. 26, “The laser device 2 is a laser device for axis adjustment, and is detachably attached from the outside of the vehicle-mounted radar device 100.”).
Lee and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar device angle adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee with the teachings of Matsui with the motivation of being able to remove a sensor when it is not needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C 112, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the 35 U.S.C 112 issues outlined above are rectified, and is thus also objected to as potentially allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. (WO 2021056405 A1) teaches calibrating the mounting angle of a radar device based on whether the number of detected target objects is greater than a designated number, but the designated number is not specified as a calculated or actual number of objects in the target area, and the calculation does not concern comparing a difference between object quantities to a predetermined setting range.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648