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 01/19/2024 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 01/20/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0009022 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
Applying Step 1 of the MPEP § 2106, the instant application includes the following independent claims:
Claim 1 is directed towards “A method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal "
Claim 9 is directed towards “A system for removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal”
As such, claims 1 and 9 are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim(s) 9 is/are evaluated under the same basis and claim 1 because claim(s) 9 has the same defects as those noted in claim 1 below:
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the MPEP § 2106: claim 1 presents the following steps which
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute an abstract idea and recite a mathematical process:
A method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal, the method comprising the steps of:
(First step) recognizing a presence of a first target, a second target, and a third target, which are located at a rear of a vehicle on which a system and a sensor are mounted, the system having a method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal; (Second step) setting an occlusion region of the second target; (Third step) recognizing a target present within the occlusion region of the second target as a third target; (Fourth step) comparing information about the first target with information about the third target; and (Fifth step) determining whether the third target is a ghost target.
Each of these steps can reasonably be performed by a general-purpose computer.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the MPEP § 2106: Claim(s) 1 and 9 do not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Claim(s) 1 and 9 similarly recite “determining whether the third target is a ghost target”
These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP § 2106: Claim(s) 1 and 9 do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination, that result in the claim as a whole, amounting to an inventive concept. The claim consists entirely of computing and outputting data in the form of an aggregating solution; thus, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular mathematical calculation; and thus, fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. Claim(s) 1 and 9 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such claim(s) 1 and 9 do not integrate the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-16, when taken both individually and in combination, are directed to the judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of the additional cited claims add limitations can be performed by a general-purpose computer using math. As such, claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations, with or without a simple calculator (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Finally, claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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(s) 1-16 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the system having a method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal’. ‘A ghost target’ has been defined in the preamble is redefined as ‘a ghost target’ within independent claim 1 and 9 multiple times and further within dependent claims 6-8, 14-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
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) 1-4, 8-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 20240053467 hereinafter Dvorecki) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230243960 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Dvorecki teaches method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal, the method comprising the steps of:
(First step) recognizing a presence of a first target, a second target, and a third target (fig 12 [three targets detected]), which are located at (fig 12), the system having a method of removing a ghost target due to a vehicle radar multi-reflection signal (0284 “In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to detect whether a target is real, for example, not a result of a multi-path, e.g., a ghost target.”);
(Second step) setting an occlusion region of the second target (0284 “radar device 1020, is a real target in the overlap region 1052, and not a ghost target resulting from multi-path signals. For example, this detection may be similar to performing transmit beamforming to the overlap region 1052.);
(Third step) recognizing a target present within the occlusion region of the second target as a third target (fig 12 [three targets are show, two real targets and one ghost target where the ghost target is overlapping a real target]);
(Fourth step) comparing information about the first target with information about the third target (0282 “radar device 1040, to extract angular information of each of its neighbor devices. For example, the angular information may be compared to a radar detect image, for example, to validate targets.”); and
(Fifth step) determining whether the third target is a ghost target (0284 “In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to detect whether a target is real, for example, not a result of a multi-path, e.g., a ghost target. For example, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be aware that there is only a certain portion of FOV overlap between each two radars, e.g., overlapping FOV region 1052. Accordingly, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to process information of a receiving radar device, e.g., radar device 1040, to detect, e.g., with high certainty, that a target detected from the transmissions of neighbors of the receiving radar device, e.g., radar device 1020, is a real target in the overlap region 1052, and not a ghost target resulting from multi-path signals.”).
Dvorecki does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches identifying targets at the real of a vehicle (fig 1a [ghost target 106-b is identified due to object 106-c at the rear of the vehicle]; 0022 “In the example environment 102, the host vehicle 104 is reversing with a host velocity 108. The present disclosure is not limited to reversing, however, and the techniques described herein may be applicable to the host vehicle 104 moving in any direction. The objects 106 have object velocities 110. It may be assumed that the stationary objects (e.g., object 106-c) have an object velocity of zero.”).
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 Wang with the teachings of Dvorecki. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets surrounding a vehicle (Wang 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, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features. Since both Dvorecki and Wang disclose similar vehicular radars, 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 2, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the second step comprises setting, to the occlusion region of the second target, an area between two outermost external lines from among straight lines passing through a reference point, at which the sensor provided in the vehicle is positioned, and corner points of a planar geometry of the second target (Dvorecki fig 12 [transmitting signals shown at least as straight lines 1225 and 1228 passing through the radar corresponding to a reference point where the corner points are the reflections from the targets]).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein, in the fourth step, information to be compared comprises at least one of:
a longitudinal position of the first target and a longitudinal position of the third target (Wang 0032 “For example, the object coordinates 304 may be latitude and longitude coordinates, range and azimuth coordinates, lateral and longitudinal coordinates, or any other information that enables the host vehicle 104 to determine at least two-dimensional locations of the objects 106 relative to the host vehicle 104”);
a transverse position of the first target and a transverse position of the third target; and
estimated speeds of the first target and the third target (Wang 0032 “The object velocities 110 may have respective speeds and directions, or speed vector components (e.g., lateral and longitudinal speeds).”).
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 Wang with the teachings of Dvorecki. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets surrounding a vehicle (Wang 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, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features. Since both Dvorecki and Wang disclose similar vehicular radars, 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 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the longitudinal position of the first target and the longitudinal position of the third target have a position of the sensor mounted on the vehicle as a longitudinal reference point (Wang 0032 “the object coordinates 304 may be latitude and longitude coordinates, range and azimuth coordinates, lateral and longitudinal coordinates, or any other information that enables the host vehicle 104 to determine at least two-dimensional locations of the objects 106 relative to the host vehicle 104”; fig 1 [ghost object is considered an object]).
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 Wang with the teachings of Dvorecki. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets surrounding a vehicle (Wang 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, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features. Since both Dvorecki and Wang disclose similar vehicular radars, 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 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 3, wherein, in the fifth step, when a condition is satisfied, the third target is determined as a ghost target (Dvorecki 0284 “In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to detect whether a target is real, for example, not a result of a multi-path, e.g., a ghost target.), and the condition is that an estimated speed of the first target and an estimated speed of the third target are similar to each other (Wang Abstract “If the expected velocity is near the velocity, it is determined that the second object is a ghost object.”).
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 Wang with the teachings of Dvorecki. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets surrounding a vehicle (Wang 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, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features. Since both Dvorecki and Wang disclose similar vehicular radars, 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 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 20240053467 hereinafter Dvorecki) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230243960 hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US PAT 20230166736 hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the longitudinal position of the first target (Dvorecki fig 12 [three targets are detected via reflections]), and
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yoo teaches the reflective surface comprises a transverse surface located closest to the sensor mounted on the vehicle from among transverse surfaces having shapes constituting a planar geometry of the second target (claim 17 “determining that the new detection information is a ghost target for the road facility located leftward of the vehicle when the transverse coordinates in the new detection information are greater than the transverse coordinates in the boundary coordinates.”).
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 Yoo with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target tracking peformance (Yoo 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, Yoo merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features to identify a ghost target. Since both the cited prior art and Yoo disclose similar ghost target identification 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 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 20240053467 hereinafter Dvorecki) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230243960 hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bishop et al. (US PAT 5321406 hereinafter Bishop).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 4, wherein in the fifth step, when a condition is satisfied, the third target is determined as a ghost target (Dvorecki 0284 “In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to detect whether a target is real, for example, not a result of a multi-path, e.g., a ghost target.), and
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bishop teaches the condition is that the longitudinal position of the first target and the longitudinal position of the third target are similar to each other (Bishop 3:43-45 “the merging step includes determining whether two of the remaining tracks have a similar bearing”; Abstract “A threat level for each of the remaining tracks is determined and two or more of the remaining tracks which are possibly representative of a same target aircraft are merged resulting in a composite track.”).
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 Bishop with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets and reduce clutter (Bishop 1:5-11). 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, Bishop merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features to identify a ghost target. Since both the cited prior art and Bishop disclose similar ghost target identification 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 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorecki et al. (US 20240053467 hereinafter Dvorecki) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230243960 hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Yoo et al. (US PAT 20230166736 hereinafter Yoo) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Bishop et al. (US PAT 5321406 hereinafter Bishop).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, wherein, in the fifth step, when a condition is satisfied, the third target is determined as a ghost target (Dvorecki 0284 “In some demonstrative aspects, radar processor 934 (FIG. 9) may be configured to detect whether a target is real, for example, not a result of a multi-path, e.g., a ghost target.),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bishop teaches the condition is that the transverse position of the first target and the transverse position of the third target are similar to each other (Bishop 3:43-45 “the merging step includes determining whether two of the remaining tracks have a similar bearing”; Abstract “A threat level for each of the remaining tracks is determined and two or more of the remaining tracks which are possibly representative of a same target aircraft are merged resulting in a composite track.”).
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 Bishop with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify ghost targets and reduce clutter (Bishop 1:5-11). 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, Bishop merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular detection features to identify a ghost target. Since both the cited prior art and Bishop disclose similar ghost target identification 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 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
KANG (US 20210364600) discloses “A method with rear cross collision warning includes: dividing a surrounding area of a host vehicle into a plurality of cells arranged in lateral and longitudinal directions; creating a grid map on which cells, among the plurality of cells, corresponding to positions where a stationary object around the host vehicle is viewed are classified as occupied cells; determining a position of a reflective structure reflecting radar signals based on a positional relationship between the occupied cells on the grid map; and determining, based on the determined position of the reflective structure and either one of a position of a tracking target viewed by the radar and moving direction of the tracking target, whether the tracking target is a ghost tracking target. (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