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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on October 3, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Madhow merely discloses fusing data from the sensor units, but fails to disclose modifying the sensing range error range of any sensor (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires that the sensor fusion be done by considering one of the sensor fusion range, the error range, or a combination of the sensor fusion range and the error range. Madhow discloses fusing radar data subsets to produce a wide radar aperture ([0055]). Therefore, Madhow discloses fusing data from the senor units and does this by taking into account the sensor fusion range.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Madhow merely discloses detailed measuring of the object which could be measured before the radar data subsets were fused, but does not disclose measuring object which could not be measured before the sensor range was expanded and the sensor fusion was performed. (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 10-11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not required as the claim only requires that the sensor fusion be performed by considering one of the sensor fusion range, the error range, or a combination of the sensor fusion range and the error range. There is no requirement that an object be measured from the fused sensor data that could not be previously measured.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on October 3, 2025.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, line 6, and claim 13, lines 7-8, the limitation “expand[ing]…the first existing error range and the second existing error range” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same expand[ing]…an error range of each of the first sensor and the second sensor limitation in claim 1 (lines 10-11) and claim 11 (lines 5-6) or if it is an entirely new range.
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, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 2022/0404506) in view of Madhow (US 2021/0124011).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Hu discloses a vehicle control apparatus/method comprising:
a sensor device including a first sensor and a second sensor (Hu, [0037] regarding a vehicle including multiple LIDAR sensors);
a memory configured to store instructions (Hu, [0047] regarding a memory); and
a control device operatively connected to the sensor device and the memory (Hu, [0035] regarding an autonomous driving module ),
wherein the instructions executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
identify a first pitch angle of the first sensor and a second pitch angle of the second sensor (Hu, [0052] regarding determining the pitch differences between data received from two LIDAR sensors & [0055] regarding using LIDAR-to-vehicle transform to calculate a LIDAR-to-LIDAR transform & [0051] regarding LIDAR-to-vehicle being a mapping of each point into the vehicle coordinate system);
in response that a difference between the first pitch angle and the second pitch angle exceeds a reference value (Hu, [0079] regarding recalibrating the LIDAR sensors when the pitch difference is greater than a threshold).
Hu fails to disclose how to expand a sensor fusion range of the sensor device or an error range of each of the first sensor and the second sensor based on the difference; and
perform sensor fusion on detecting results of the first sensor and the second sensor by considering at least one of the sensor fusion range, the error range, or a combination of the sensor fusion range and the error range.
Madhow teaches how to expand a sensor fusion range of the sensor device or an error range of each of the first sensor and the second sensor based on the difference; and
perform sensor fusion on detecting results of the first sensor and the second sensor by considering at least one of the sensor fusion range, the error range, or a combination of the sensor fusion range and the error range (Madhow, [0055] regarding a larger effective aperture providing a better angular resolution than small individual subsets).
Hu and Madhow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor fusion. It is inherent that placing sensors further apart would expand the fusion range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu to incorporate setting sensors further apart, as disclosed by Madhow, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of achieving better angular resolution.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hu in view of Madhow teaches the vehicle control apparatus/method as claimed in claim 1/11. Hu further teaches wherein the instructions executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
control at least one of acceleration of a host vehicle, deceleration of the host vehicle, steering of the host vehicle, or a combination of the acceleration, the deceleration, and the steering by use of at least part of sensor fusion data generated as a result of performing the sensor fusion (Hu, [0036] regarding controlling the braking, steering, and acceleration based on the gather perception and localization information (i.e., sensor fusion data)).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Madhow, and further in view of Bathija (US 2022/0006945).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hu in view of Madhow teaches the vehicle control apparatus/method as claimed in claim 1/11, but fail to teach wherein the sensor device further includes a first pitch angle sensor and a second pitch angle sensor, and
wherein the instructions executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
identify the first pitch angle of the first sensor by use of the first pitch angle sensor mounted in an area adjacent to the first sensor; and
identify the second pitch angle of the second sensor by use of the second pitch angle sensor existing in an area adjacent to the second sensor.
Bathija teaches using a pitch angle sensor to measure the angle of a sensor (Bathija, [0123] regarding using accelerometers and gyroscopes within the sensor module to determine tilt angle of the sensor).
Hu and Bathija are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor angle measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu, as modified, to incorporate using a gyroscope to measure sensor pitch angle, as disclosed by Bathija, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the pitch angle of a sensor measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious in response that the sensor fusion fails, determine whether there was another sensor fusion history within a predetermined period in a past from a point in time in response that the difference between the first pitch angle and the second pitch angle occurs. Hu discloses determining a difference between a first pitch angle and second pitch of two sensors ([0079]) and creating sensor fusion with the two sensors ([0035]). However, it does not disclose determining whether there was another sensor fusion history within a predetermined period in a past from a point in time when sensor fusion fails.
Conclusion
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights