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 05/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/29/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri).
Regarding claim 1, Cao teaches A processor-implemented method of predicting a movement of a (0008 “A technique capable of sensing a running vehicle with high accuracy is thus desired.”):
identifying a (fig 1)
separating a Doppler velocity corresponding to at least one wheel of the (0066 “In the case of the first and third directions 121 and 123, in which wheels are located, a direction correlation power value (solid line) is relatively high in a band off the Doppler frequency fd.sub.0 of the vehicle body portion, as indicated by a portion 131a.”; 0063 “As a result, Doppler components of the wheel 141 which are measured by the radar apparatus 200 spread wider than the vehicle body velocity. The term “Doppler spread width” here refers to the number of Doppler frequency components included in echo signals from a certain object, which represents the range of velocity components of the object.”);
determining a position of the at least one wheel of the (0117 “Note that a moving object detected at this time is not limited to a running vehicle. The moving object detector 543 outputs a piece of moving object position information indicating the position of a moving object to the wheel position estimator 544. Note that the position of a moving object is defined as, for example, an extent of range bin and a direction angle (hereinafter referred to as a “moving object region”, as needed).”);
generating at least one of first movement information related to a horizontal movement of the (0199 “a vehicle velocity is determined from the radius and turning angle velocity of a wheel. For example, if the vehicle velocity is 20 km/h, the width of Doppler spreading caused by rotating of a wheel is about 1.5 km/h.” [a turning angle velocity of a wheel corresponds to ‘information related to a horizontal movement’]);
determining a position of the (0129 “The result outputter 550 in FIG. 5 outputs a piece of information indicating a result of detection by the running vehicle detector 540, such as whether a running vehicle has been detected and the position (represented by a direction and a distance) and the vehicle type of the detected running vehicle”); and
Cao does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gutmann teaches identifying a cut-in object from among a plurality of objects based on radar data (0064 “In this example, the future trajectory (heading and speed over a future period of time) of the bounding box may indicate that the object will enter into lane 410 within a predetermined period of time, for instance 1 second or more or less. In response, the vehicle's computing devices may control the vehicle to speed up, slow down, or even change lanes as appropriate to avoid a collision or even getting too close to vehicle 320.”).
in response to the velocity of the cut-in object being less than or equal to a reference velocity, controlling a driving vehicle based on the position of the cut-in object (0064 “In response, the vehicle's computing devices may control the vehicle to speed up, slow down, or even change lanes as appropriate to avoid a collision or even getting too close to vehicle 320”; 0068 “a given vehicle is stopped in an adjacent lane may attempting to change into the lane of the vehicle 100, for instance, because the driver of that car has changed his mind and wants to change his route and use the lane. In such cases, the wide angle of the wheel relative to the side of the given vehicle may provide more information about where the given vehicle is going to go than the given vehicle's prior trajectory. Such stationary lane changes or low-speed lane changes are common cases where the front wheels are angled significantly.”),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Gutmann with the teachings of Cao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve estimation accuracy (Gutmann 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Gutmann merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular lane change features. Since both Cao and Gutmann disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Egri teaches wherein the identifying of the cut-in object is performed before the separating of the Doppler velocity (fig 1; 2:1-5 “the system and process of the present invention first determines whether an object is likely to be present at a particular range before dedicating the computational resources and emitting significant RF to determine the target parameters of an object at that range.”; 4:27-30 “Each object is described in terms of the estimated value of object parameters (i.e., state) that might include range, bearing, and Doppler velocity”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Egri with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve estimation accuracy (Egri 3:25-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Egri merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular vehicle sensor systems. Since both Egri and the cited prior art disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the radar data comprises a radio frequency signal reflected from the cut-in object from among pieces of radar data obtained from a radar device attached to a driving vehicle (Cao 0087 “The transmitting antenna 423 emits, as a radar signal, the input transmit signal to the space around the radar apparatus 200. The radar signal reflected by an object returns as an echo signal to the radar receiver 500”; fig 1A).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the radar data is obtained by a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar using a frequency modulated (FM) signal having a frequency that changes with time (Cao 0023 “FIG. 9 shows one example of a process of frequency modulation of a transmission signal”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the cut-in object comprises: calculating a distance to a plurality of points of the cut-in object based on the radar data (Cao abstract “likelihood of a direction of arrival of the echo signal for each of the directions,”);
calculating a velocity of each of the plurality of points based on the radar data (Cao 0036 “FIG. 22 shows one example of the relationship between Doppler velocity and direction correlation power value for a front wheel portion cell of a running vehicle behind, according to the present embodiment;”);
identifying a region where the cut-in object is positioned in a target region based on the distance and the velocity (Cao 0180 “The normalized direction correlation value calculator 532 calculates a normalized direction correlation value N_R.sub.out(k,n,θ.sub.u) using, for example, Equation (10) below for each combination of the direction angle θ.sub.u, a range bin, and a Doppler frequency.”);
calculating a direction of arrival (DOA) of each of the plurality of points (Cao 0174 “The direction-of-arrival estimator 530 estimates a direction angle θ (see FIG. 10) indicating a direction of arrival of an echo signal on the basis of the correlation vector h(n,k).”); and
generating a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate system using the distance, the velocity, and the DOA (Cao 0212 “Thus, a piece of direction correlation power value data is a 100×121×256 three-dimensional (3D) data.”; 0211 “measurement of 20 m requires the number K of range bins to exceed 100 . . . the number of direction angles is 121 . . . 256-point DFT, the number M of Doppler frequencies is 256.”; ).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the calculating of the velocity comprises: calculating the velocity of each of the plurality of points through Doppler FFT based on the radar data (Cao 0163 “a digital Fourier transform (DFT) can be adopted as a Doppler frequency analysis method”; 0169 “The Doppler frequency analyzer 521 can obtain the Doppler velocity of an object from the Doppler frequency component step size Δf using, for example, Equation (5)”).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the separating of the Doppler velocity corresponding to the at least one wheel comprises: separating the Doppler velocity corresponding to the at least one wheel in a radar data coordinate system based on the velocity of the cut-in object (Cao 0066 “In the case of the first and third directions 121 and 123, in which wheels are located, a direction correlation power value (solid line) is relatively high in a band off the Doppler frequency fd.sub.0 of the vehicle body portion, as indicated by a portion 131a. The portion 131a is a velocity component of a wheel portion.”).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 19, wherein the at least one wheel comprises a first wheel and a second wheel (Cao 0066 “In the case of the first and third directions 121 and 123, in which wheels are located”), and the moving direction of the cut-in object is based on an angle formed by the first wheel and the second wheel with a direction of the horizontal movement of the cut-in object (Cao 0061 “For example, a direction of velocity 143 which indicates the rotating direction of a front central portion 142 of the wheel 141 is orthogonal to a radial direction (observation direction) 144 of the radar apparatus 200.”; 0067 “When the rotating wheel is observed from in front of or behind the vehicle, the Doppler velocity at each part of the surface of a wheel is obtained by adding a velocity component in a radial direction of the radar apparatus 200 which is produced by rotation of the wheel to the Doppler velocity of the vehicle body portion, and the Doppler velocity changes almost continuously along the surface of the wheel. Thus, the direction correlation power value changes gently and smoothly, as described above”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hakobyan et al. (US 20230003873 hereinafter Hakobyan).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5,
While Cao discusses using FFTs, The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hakobyan teaches
wherein the calculating of the distance comprises: calculating the distance to each of the plurality of points of the cut-in object through distance fast Fourier transform (FFT) based on the radar data (0004 “an FFT module with specialized hardware for performing fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) for the purpose of calculating a two-dimensional distance/velocity radar image”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hakobyan with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve computational speed (Hakobyan 0043). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hakobyan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular FFT features. Since both the cited prior art and Hakobyan disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kishigami (US 20200096595).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising:
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kishigami teaches
transforming the region where the cut-in object is positioned in the 3D coordinate system into a radar data coordinate system using time, frequency, and velocity as axes (0113 “calculates noise power estimation value PowerCL(k,f.sub.s,w) by using a two-dimensional CFAR window formed of a discrete time axis (corresponding to a distance) and a Doppler frequency axis (corresponding to a relative speed) or a combination of one-dimensional (for example, a cross shape on a discrete time axis and a Doppler frequency axis) CFAR windows”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kishigami with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Kishigami 0044). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kishigami merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular Doppler features. Since both the cited prior art and Kishigami disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kishigami teaches wherein the identifying of the region where the cut-in object is positioned comprises: identifying the region where the cut-in object is positioned using constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection (0234 “In a case where the number of cells causing primary OK determination exceeds an upper limit value, CFAR section 214b more preferentially sets a cell included in a preset region as a cell (for example, a test cell) subjected to secondary determination than other cells among the cells causing primary OK determination. For example, in a case where radar apparatus 10 is mounted on a vehicle or the like, the following control may be added by taking into consideration collision safety.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kishigami with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target detection (Kishigami 0044). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kishigami merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular Doppler features. Since both the cited prior art and Kishigami disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bialer et al. (US 20210011150 hereinafter Bialer).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bialer teaches wherein the calculating of the velocity of the cut-in object comprises: clustering points adjacent to each other from among the plurality of points in the region of the cut-in object; and calculating the velocity of the cut-in object based on a velocity corresponding to the clustered points (Bialer 0039 “Predefined process block 211 calculates a respective ego velocity score for each vector cluster based, at least in part, on the total number of relative velocity vectors contained in that vector cluster, a variance of detections of the spatial position of the centroid associated with each relative velocity vector in that vector cluster, and the proximity of the estimated vehicle velocity to a prior course ego velocity estimate”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bialer with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target tracking (Bialer 0031). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bialer merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features for a vehicular radar. Since both the cited prior art and Bialer disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the calculating of the velocity of the cut-in object comprises: calculating the velocity of the cut-in object based on a statistical value of the velocity corresponding to each of the clustered points (Bialer 0039 “Predefined process block 211 calculates a respective ego velocity score for each vector cluster based, at least in part, on the total number of relative velocity vectors contained in that vector cluster, a variance of detections of the spatial position of the centroid associated with each relative velocity vector in that vector cluster, and the proximity of the estimated vehicle velocity to a prior course ego velocity estimate”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bialer with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target tracking (Bialer 0031). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bialer merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular clustering features for a vehicular radar. Since both the cited prior art and Bialer disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20190318206 hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Smith teaches wherein the separating of the Doppler velocity corresponding to the at least one wheel comprises: determining, as the Doppler velocity, a velocity between the velocity of the cut-in object and a value obtained by multiplying a ratio by the velocity of the cut-in object (0010 “In some implementations, the instance of additional vehicle data includes yaw parameters and one or both of velocity and acceleration.”; 0112 “the yaw parameter module 154B can determine the yaw rate based on dividing the velocity differential by the distance (optionally multiplied by a constant), to determine a yaw rate in radians per second.” [the constant corresponds to a ratio]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Smith with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve vehicle reliability (Smith 0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Smith merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular Doppler features. Since both the cited prior art and Smith disclose similar vehicular radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jefferies et al. (US 20220234596 hereinafter Jefferies).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jefferies teaches wherein the first movement information is determined based on a distance between a driving vehicle and two wheels of the cut-in object positioned at a same side of the cut-in object (Claim 6 “The system of claim 2, wherein the distances from said target adjustment stand to either side of the vehicle comprise distances from said target stand to either side of a pair of opposed wheel assemblies of the vehicle, and wherein said distance targets comprise a pair of wheel targets configured for positioning at opposed wheel assemblies of a vehicle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Jefferies with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve driver assistance (Jefferies 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jefferies merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular distance detection features. Since both the cited prior art and Jefferies disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fernando et al. (US 20200062255 hereinafter Fernando).
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fernando teaches controlling the driving vehicle by applying a greater weight to the first movement information than to the second movement information, in response to a distance between a driving vehicle and the cut-in object being greater than or equal to a threshold (0063 “If a longitudinal distance of a vehicle 140 in a lane adjacent to a lane of travel of the host vehicle 105 is less than a third distance threshold, then the weight assigned to that vehicle 140 is increased.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fernando with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve driver assistance (Fernando 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fernando merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular distance detection features. Since both the cited prior art and Fernando disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20160284213 hereinafter Cao) in view of Gutmann et al. (US 20220212662 hereinafter Gutmann) and further in view of Egri et al. (US PAT 7489265 hereinafter Egri) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fish et al. (US 20250170955 hereinafter Fish).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fish teaches controlling a driving vehicle by applying a greater weight to the second movement information than to the first movement information, in response to the velocity of the cut-in object being less than or equal to a threshold (0055 “At 430, that a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle is below a threshold is determined. The determination may be made by the signaling system 151 using the sensor data. The threshold may be a static threshold or may be a dynamic threshold that changes based on data such as the velocity and weight of the first vehicle 100, and weather conditions that may affect braking distances such as snow or rain.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fish with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a vehicle control system (Fish Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fish merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular distance detection features. Since both the cited prior art and Fish disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
NODA (US 20190028309) discloses “A receiving device according to the present invention includes: a search range control unit that determines, for a reception signal including a plurality of wireless signals partially overlapping on at least one of a time axis and a frequency axis and received by a moving object (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648