DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 20 is new.
Claim 11 is amended.
Claims 11-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in DE 102021105344.7 on 03/05/2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau (US 20200363500).
Regarding Claim 11, Lau discloses the following limitations:
A method for checking a functional capability of a distance sensor of a vehicle, the method comprising: (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0190] Methods according to the above-described examples can be implemented using computer-executable instructions that are stored or otherwise available from computer-readable media. [0117] At step 815, the vehicle computer 110 of the vehicle 102 receives the plurality of sensor calibration capture datasets from the one or more sensors, either after the calibration time period, over the course of the calibration time period,)
continuously receiving sensor data from the distance sensor, wherein the sensor data describe a sensor signal emitted by the distance sensor and reflected on at least one object in an environment of the vehicle, (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0117], [0001] The present invention generally pertains to calibration of sensors that are used by vehicles. More specifically, the present invention pertains to calibration of radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors of a vehicle to compensate for positional discrepancies in radar cross section (RCS) measurements.)
continuously determining distance values which describe a distance between the distance sensor and the at least one object, (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117])
based on the sensor data, storing the distance values for a predetermined period of time, (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117], [0120] At step 830, the vehicle computer 110 generates and stores a function, the function plotting processed RCS values (or other strength values if the range sensor is not a radar sensor) over the field of view 410 of the sensor (e.g., RCS strength values tracked along a Y axis) against angles within the field of view 410 of the sensor (e.g., angle values tracked along an X axis).)
determining a current range of the distance sensor based on the stored distance values, (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117], [0120])
wherein the current range is a maximum distance at which objects can currently be detected with the distance sensor, (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117], [0120], [0168] At step 1410, the vehicle computer 110 applies a rough filter. The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings outside of a range with pre-determined minimum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g., 1 m) and a pre-determined maximum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g. 20 m). The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings with an RCS less than a pre-determined number of dBsm (e.g., 5 dBsm).)
subsequently comparing the determined current range with a predetermined maximum range of the distance sensor, and (Lau – [Fig. 8], [Fig. 14], [0001], [0117], [0168], [0080] The datasets 420A, 420B, and 420C of FIG. 4B may be data that was just measured by the radar sensor(s) of the vehicle 102, or it may be data that has already undergone some processing, such as the binning, filtering, and/or RCS compensation discussed with respect to FIG. 8; [0121] Smoothing may be achieved by applying one or more filters or algorithms to the data in an RCS compensation function, [0168] At step 1410, the vehicle computer 110 applies a rough filter. The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings outside of a range with pre-determined minimum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g., 1 m) and a pre-determined maximum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g. 20 m). The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings with an RCS less than a pre-determined number of dBsm (e.g., 5 dBsm). The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings outside of a pre-determined angle range in either angular direction from the direction the vehicle 102 is facing (e.g., 45 degrees). The rough filter may be, for example, a high-pass filter, a low-pass filter, or a band-pass filter.)
checking the functional capability of the distance sensor based on a result of the comparing. (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117], [0168])
Regarding Claim 12, Lau further discloses:
wherein: a plurality of distance segments are predefined, (Lau – [0080], [0117])
a check is carried out based on the distance values to identify a portion of the distance segments in which the at least one object has been detected by way of the distance sensor, and (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0080], [0117])
the current range of the distance sensor is determined based on the portion of the distance segments in which the at least one object has been detected. (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0001], [0080], [0117])
Regarding Claim 13, Lau further discloses:
wherein: a plurality of angle segments are predefined, and (Lau – [0119] At optional step 825, one or more filters may be applied, by the vehicle computer 110, to the RCS values in a FOV dataset captured by the sensor, either to data from each bin after being split into angle-range-based bins in optional step 820 individually or to the entire FOV dataset before (or without) being split into angle-range-based bins in optional step 820.)
a check is carried out based on the distance values to identify a portion of the angle segments in which the at least one object has been detected by way of the distance sensor. (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0117], [0119], [0120])
Regarding Claim 14, Lau further discloses:
wherein: a blocking of the distance sensor is detected based on the portion of the angle segments in which the at least one object has been detected. (Lau – [Fig. 4A-B], [0072-0074] some cases two or more different fields of view 410 corresponding to the different sensors may overlap, in which case certain angular ranges relative to the direction of the vehicle are covered by more than one overlapping field of view, or in other words, may be viewed by more than one radar sensor. In some cases, a “gap” or “blind spot” may exist between two or more different fields of view 410 because no sensor viewed the angles in that gap and therefore no sensor had the angles/regions in that gap in its corresponding FOV 410, which may cause certain angular ranges corresponding to those gaps or blind spots to be missing from the aggregate field of view (FOV) 405… Additionally, one sensor of the given type may have a clear and unobstructed field of view 410 of the environment around the vehicle, while another sensor of the given type may have a field of view 410 that is at least partially occluded or weakened… Vehicle sensors of a given type can drift even further apart in their measurements due to exposure to the elements, for example through exposure to heat, rain, dust, frost, rocks, pollution, vehicular collisions, all of which can further impact a particular sensor's measurements even with all else being equal.)
Regarding Claim 15, Lau further discloses:
wherein: the current range of the distance sensor is determined based on a portion of the distance values which describe objects moving away from the vehicle. (Lau – [0115] such as a static calibration environment in which the vehicle 102 does not move at all (e.g., the vehicle 102 stays in a single position in front of targets, as in FIG. 3, where the targets may optionally move))
Regarding Claim 16, Lau further discloses:
wherein: the current range of the distance sensor is determined based on a portion of the distance values which describe objects with a predetermined existence probability. (Lau – [Fig. 8], [0080], [0121])
Regarding Claim 17, Lau further discloses:
wherein: the period of time for which the distance values are stored is predefined based on a traffic situation in the environment of the vehicle. (Lau – [0088] The vehicle 102 drives along the thoroughfare 505 in the hallway calibration environment 500, optionally stopping after incremental distance or time amounts, for example, every foot, every N.sub.1 feet, every meter, every N.sub.1 meters, every second, or every N.sub.1 seconds, where N.sub.1 is a number greater than zero, such as 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. At each stop, the vehicle 102 captures data using each of its vehicle sensors, or at least each of the vehicle sensors that it intends to calibrate. The examiner is interpreting stopping as a traffic situation.)
Regarding Claim 18, Lau further discloses:
A computing device for a sensor system of a vehicle, wherein the computing device is configured to carry out the method according to claim 11. (Lau – [0185] Storage device 1530 can be a non-volatile and/or non-transitory and/or computer-readable memory device and can be a hard disk or other types of computer readable media which can store data that are accessible by a computer,)
Regarding Claim 19, Lau further discloses:
A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed on a computer device, carries out the method according to claim 11. (Lau – [0185])
Regarding Claim 20, Lau further discloses:
wherein the at least one object is uncalibrated (Lau – [Fig. 3], [0115])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-11, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lau does not disclose “determining a current range of the distance sensor based on the stored distance values, wherein the current range is a maximum distance at which objects can currently be detected with the distance sensor,”. The examiner disagrees, Lau [0080] and [0168] clearly disclose this limitation when considering “the current range is a maximum distance at which objects can currently be detected with the distance sensor” is a well understood simplification of a parameter that requires more information than distances. Lau [0168] points out that RCS measurements in dBsm is a proper measurement for filtering. It is not possible for a radar to detect an object inside a “maximum distance” and not detect an object outside the “maximum distance” that has the same detection measurement. A “current range” is dependent on an RCS which is typically measured in decibels. For example, the maximum range (detection before any processing) of a baseball would be much smaller than a large vehicle. It is clear that the binning, filtering, and RCS compensation described in Lau [0080] discloses the limitations in question when considering the properties of RCS measurements and the citations provide as a whole.
Applicant argues, see page 11, that Lau does not disclose “checking the functional capability of the distance sensor based on a result of the comparing”. The examiner disagrees for the reasons above and points out that the comparing is done by binning, filtering, and RCS compensation described in Lau [0080] and [0168]. Lau [0168] explicitly discloses “filter out any radar readings outside of a range with pre-determined minimum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g., 1 m) and a pre-determined maximum distance from the vehicle 102 (e.g. 20 m). The rough filter may, for example, filter out any radar readings with an RCS less than a pre-determined number of dBsm (e.g., 5 dBsm).” as well as “angle-range-based bins” to meet the “comparing” aspect of the limitation. It follows that Lau [Fig. 8], [0001], [0117], [0168] when taken as a whole, discloses checking and compensating for the positional discrepancies in radar cross section (RCS) measurements when performing the calibration of radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors of a vehicle.
Applicant argues, see page 11, that Lau “only uses calibrated targets”. This is incorrect, Lau [0064] discloses a target used for sensor calibration, not a calibrated target used for sensor calibration.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Lau discloses the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights